Re: parallel vacuum comments

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, I can take care of this before committing. The v9-0001* looks
> good to me as well, so, I am planning to commit that tomorrow unless I
> see more comments or any objection to that.

I would like to thank both Masahiko and yourself for working on this.
It's important.

> There is still pending
> work related to moving parallel vacuum code to a separate file and a
> few other pending comments that are still under discussion. We can
> take care of those in subsequent patches. Do, let me know if you or
> others think differently?

I'm +1 on moving it into a new file. I think that that division makes
perfect sense. It will make the design of parallel VACUUM easier to
understand. I believe that index vacuuming (whether or not it involves
parallel workers) ought to be a more or less distinct operation to
heap vacuuming. With a distinct autovacuum schedule (well, the
schedule would be related, but still distinct).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan