On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > *
>> > +end_parallel_vacuum(LVParallelState *lps, Relation *Irel, int nindexes)
>> > {
>> > ..
>> > + /* Shutdown worker processes and destroy the parallel context */
>> > + WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(lps->pcxt);
>> > ..
>> > }
>> >
>> > Do we really need to call WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish here as it
>> > must have been called in lazy_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes
>> > before this time?
>>
>> No, removed.
>
>
> + /* Shutdown worker processes and destroy the parallel context */
> + DestroyParallelContext(lps->pcxt);
>
> But you forget to update the comment.
Fixed.
>
> Few more comments:
> --------------------------------
> 1.
> +/*
> + * Parallel Index vacuuming and index cleanup routine used by both the leader
> + * process and worker processes. Unlike single process vacuum, we don't
> update
> + * index statistics after cleanup index since it is not allowed during
> + * parallel mode, instead copy index bulk-deletion results from the local
> + * memory to the DSM segment and update them at the end of parallel lazy
> + * vacuum.
> + */
> +static void
> +do_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes(Relation *Irel, int nindexes,
> + IndexBulkDeleteResult **stats,
> + LVShared *lvshared,
> + LVDeadTuples *dead_tuples)
> +{
> + /* Loop until all indexes are vacuumed */
> + for (;;)
> + {
> + int idx;
> +
> + /* Get an index number to process */
> + idx = pg_atomic_fetch_add_u32(&(lvshared->nprocessed), 1);
> +
> + /* Done for all indexes? */
> + if (idx >= nindexes)
> + break;
> +
> + /*
> + * Update the pointer to the corresponding bulk-deletion result
> + * if someone has already updated it.
> + */
> + if (lvshared->indstats[idx].updated &&
> + stats[idx] == NULL)
> + stats[idx] = &(lvshared->indstats[idx].stats);
> +
> + /* Do vacuum or cleanup one index */
> + if (!lvshared->for_cleanup)
> + lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], dead_tuples,
> + lvshared->reltuples);
> + else
> + lazy_cleanup_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], lvshared->reltuples,
> + lvshared->estimated_count);
>
> It seems we always run index cleanup via parallel worker which seems overkill
> because the cleanup index generally scans the index only when bulkdelete was
> not performed. In some cases like for hash index, it doesn't do anything
> even bulk delete is not called. OTOH, for brin index, it does the main job
> during cleanup but we might be able to always allow index cleanup by parallel
> worker for brin indexes if we remove the allocation in brinbulkdelete which I
> am not sure is of any use.
>
> I think we shouldn't call cleanup via parallel worker unless bulkdelete
> hasn't been performed on the index.
>
Agreed. Fixed.
> 2.
> - for (i = 0; i < nindexes; i++)
> - lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[i],
> - &indstats[i],
> - vacrelstats);
> + lazy_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes(vacrelstats, Irel, nindexes,
> + indstats, lps, false);
>
> Indentation is not proper. You might want to run pgindent.
Fixed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
