Re: doc review for parallel vacuum
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
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: 2020-04-13T05:14:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:16 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > Also, this part still doesn't read well: > > - * amvacuumcleanup to the DSM segment if it's the first time to get it? > - * from them? because they? allocate it locally and it's possible that an > - * index will be vacuumed by the different vacuum process at the next > > If you change "it" and "them" and "it" and say "*a* different", then it'll be > ok. > I am not sure if I follow how exactly you want to change it but still let me know what you think about if we change it like: "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 the different vacuum process at the next time." -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Comments and doc fixes for commit 40d964ec99.
- a6fea120a7e3 13.0 landed