On 16 July 2014 12:13, Magnus Hagander Wrote,

>Yeah, those are exactly my points. I think it would be significantly simpler 
>to do it that way, rather than forking and threading. And also easier to make 

>(and as a  optimization on Alvaros suggestion, you can of course reuse the 
>initial connection as one of the workers as long as you got the full list of 
>tasks from it up front, which I think you  do anyway in order to   sorting of 

I have modified the patch as per the suggestion,

Now in beginning we create all connections, and first connection we use for 
getting table list in beginning, After that all connections will be involved in 
vacuum task.

Please have a look and provide your opinion…

Thanks & Regards,

Dilip Kumar

Attachment: vacuumdb_parallel_v11.patch
Description: vacuumdb_parallel_v11.patch

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

Reply via email to