Re: parallel vacuum comments

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

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: 2021-12-21T03:05:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2. What is the reason for not moving
> > > > lazy_vacuum_one_index/lazy_cleanup_one_index to vacuum.c so that they
> > > > can be called from vacuumlazy.c and vacuumparallel.c? Without this
> > > > refactoring patch, I think both leader and workers set the same error
> > > > context phase (VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX) during index
> > > > vacuuming? Is it because you want a separate context phase for a
> > > > parallel vacuum?
> > >
> > > Since the phases defined as VacErrPhase like
> > > VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_SCAN_HEAP and VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP etc.
> > > and error callback function, vacuum_error_callback(), are specific to
> > > heap, I thought it'd not be a good idea to move
> > > lazy_vacuum/cleanup_one_index() so that both vacuumlazy.c and
> > > vacuumparallel.c can use the phases and error callback function.
> > >
> >
> > How about exposing it via heapam.h? We have already exposed a few
> > things via heapam.h (see /* in heap/vacuumlazy.c */). In the current
> > proposal, we need to have separate callbacks and phases for index
> > vacuuming so that it can be used by both vacuumlazy.c and
> > vacuumparallel.c which might not be a good idea.
>
> Yeah, but if we expose VacErrPhase and vacuum_error_callback(), we
> need to also expose LVRelState and vacuumparallel.c also uses it,
> which seems not a good idea. So we will need to introduce a new struct
> dedicated to the error callback function. Is that right?
>

Right, but that also doesn't sound good to me. I think it is better to
keep a separate error context for parallel vacuum workers as you have
in the patch. However, let's add some comments to indicate that if
there is a change in one of the context functions, the other should be
changed. BTW, if we go with that then we should set the correct phase
for workers as well?

-- 
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.