Horton

Re: doc review for parallel vacuum

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-13T09:52:06Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:00 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> |Copy the index
> |bulk-deletion result returned from ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup to
> |the DSM segment if it's the first time [???] because they allocate locally
> |and it's possible that an index will be vacuumed by a different
> |vacuum process the next time."
>
> Is it correct to say: "..if it's the first iteration" and "different process on
> the next iteration" ?  Or "cycle" ?
>

"cycle" sounds better.  I have changed the patch as per your latest
comments.  Let me know what you think?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Comments and doc fixes for commit 40d964ec99.