Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-10-23T11:14:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:17 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Basically, only IndexBulkDeleteResult is now shared across the stage > > > so we can move all members to GistVacState and completely get rid of > > > GistBulkDeleteResult? > > > > > > > Yes, something like that would be better. Let's try and see how it comes out. > I have modified as we discussed. Please take a look. > Thanks, I haven't reviewed this yet, but it seems to be on the right lines. Sawada-San, can you please prepare the next version of the parallel vacuum patch on top of this patch and enable parallel vacuum for Gist indexes? We can do the review of this patch in detail once the parallel vacuum patch is in better shape as without that it wouldn't make sense to commit this patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Delete empty pages in each pass during GIST VACUUM.
- 4e514c6180fb 13.0 landed
-
Fix memory leak introduced in commit 7df159a620.
- 62f4dd3796da 12.1 landed
- 70a6c37d524c 13.0 landed
-
Delete empty pages during GiST VACUUM.
- 7df159a620b7 12.0 cited