On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>> In particular, pgpipe is almost an exact duplicate between them,
>> except the copy in vac_parallel.c has fallen behind changes made to
>> parallel.c.  (Those changes would have fixed the Windows warnings).  I
>> think that this function (and perhaps other parts as
>> well--"exit_horribly" for example) need to refactored into a common
>> file that both files can include.  I don't know where the best place
>> for that would be, though.  (I haven't done this type of refactoring
>> myself.)
> I think commit d2c1740dc275543a46721ed254ba3623f63d2204 is apropos.
> Maybe we should move pgpipe back to src/port and have pg_dump and this
> new thing use that.  I'm not sure about the rest of duplication in
> vac_parallel.c; there might be a lot in common with what
> pg_dump/parallel.c does too.  Having two copies of code is frowned upon
> for good reasons.  This patch introduces 1200 lines of new code in
> vac_parallel.c, ugh.
> If we really require 1200 lines to get parallel vacuum working for
> vacuumdb, I would question the wisdom of this effort.  To me, it seems
> better spent improving autovacuum to cover whatever it is that this
> patch is supposed to be good for --- or maybe just enable having a shell
> script that launches multiple vacuumdb instances in parallel ...

I would only envision using the parallel feature for vacuumdb after a
pg_upgrade or some other major maintenance window (that is the only
time I ever envision using vacuumdb at all).  I don't think autovacuum
can be expected to handle such situations well, as it is designed to
be a smooth background process.

I guess the ideal solution would be for manual VACUUM to have a
PARALLEL option, then vacuumdb could just invoke that one table at a
time.  That way you would get within-table parallelism which would be
important if one table dominates the entire database cluster. But I
don't foresee that happening any time soon.

I don't know how to calibrate the number of lines that is worthwhile.
If you write in C and need to have cross-platform compatibility and
robust error handling, it seems to take hundreds of lines to do much
of anything.  The code duplication is a problem, but I don't think
just raw line count is, especially since it has already been written.

The trend in this project seems to be for shell scripts to eventually
get converted into C programs.  In fact, src/bin/scripts now has no
scripts at all.  Also it is important to vacuum/analyze tables in the
same database at the same time, otherwise you will not get much
speed-up in the ordinary case where there is only one meaningful
database.  Doing that in a shell script would be fairly hard.  It
should be pretty easy in Perl (at least for me--I'm sure others
disagree), but that also doesn't seem to be the way we do things for
programs intended for end users.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to