Horton

Re: parallel vacuum comments

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: "tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com>, "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2021-12-21T05:04:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  BTW, if we go with that then we should set the correct phase
> > for workers as well?
>
> If we have separate error context for the leader (vacuumlazy.c) and
> workers (vacuumparallel.c), workers don't necessarily need to have the
> phases such as  VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX and
> VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_INDEX_CLEANUP. They can use PVIndVacStatus in the
> error callback function as the patch does.
>

Okay. One minor point, let's change comments atop vacuum.c considering
the movement of new functions.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Commits

  1. Move parallel vacuum code to vacuumparallel.c.

  2. Move index vacuum routines to vacuum.c.

  3. Improve parallel vacuum implementation.

  4. Fix parallel amvacuumcleanup safety bug.

  5. Simplify state managed by VACUUM.