On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 12:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 7:40 AM tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com > <tanghy.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 2:12 PM Masahiko Sawada > > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Masahiko Sawada > > > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada > > > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:44 PM Amit Kapila > > > > > > > <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed with the above two points. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've attached updated patches that incorporated the above comments > > > > > > > too. Please review them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have made the following minor changes to the 0001 patch: (a) An > > > > > > assert was removed from dead_items_max_items() which I added back. > > > > > > (b) > > > > > > Removed an unnecessary semicolon from one of the statements in > > > > > > compute_parallel_vacuum_workers(). (c) Changed comments at a few > > > > > > places. (d) moved all parallel_vacuum_* related functions together. > > > > > > (e) ran pgindent and slightly modify the commit message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think of the attached? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for updating the patch! > > > > > > > > > > The patch also moves some functions, e.g., update_index_statistics() > > > > > is moved without code changes. I agree to move functions for > > > > > consistency but that makes the review hard and the patch complicated. > > > > > I think it's better to do improving the parallel vacuum code and > > > > > moving functions in separate patches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I thought it might be better to keep all parallel_vacuum_* > > > > related functions together but we can keep that in a separate patch > > > > Feel free to submit without those changes. > > > > > > I've attached the patch. I've just moved some functions back but not > > > done other changes. > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch. > > > > I tested your patch and tried some cases, like large indexes, different > > types of indexes, it worked well. > > > > Besides, I noticed a typo as follows: > > > > + /* Estimate size for index vacuum stats -- > > PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_STATS */ > > > > "PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_STATS" should be "PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_INDEX_STATS". > > > > Thanks, I can take care of this before committing. The v9-0001* looks > good to me as well, so, I am planning to commit that tomorrow unless I > see more comments or any objection to that.
Thanks! > There is still pending > work related to moving parallel vacuum code to a separate file and a > few other pending comments that are still under discussion. We can > take care of those in subsequent patches. Do, let me know if you or > others think differently? I'm on the same page. I've attached an updated patch. The patch incorporated several changes from the last version: * Rename parallel_vacuum_begin() to parallel_vacuum_init() * Unify the terminology; use "index bulk-deletion" and "index cleanup" instead of "index vacuum" and "index cleanup". * Fix the comment of parallel_vacuum_init() pointed out by Andres * Fix a typo that is left in commit 22bd3cbe0c (pointed out by Hou) Please review it. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
v8-0001-Move-parallel-vacuum-code-to-vacuumparallel.c.patch
Description: Binary data
