Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies
Date: 2021-04-05 23:29:27
Message-ID: 933377.1617665367@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> Do you think that it's okay that we rely on the propagation of global
> state to parallel workers on Postgres 13? Don't we need something like
> my fixup commit 49f49def on Postgres 13 as well? At least for the
> EXEC_BACKEND case, I think.

Uh ... *what* propagation of global state to parallel workers? Workers
fork off from the postmaster, not from their leader process.

(I note that morepork is still failing. The other ones didn't report
in yet.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com 2021-04-05 23:31:51 RE: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-04-05 22:52:43 Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index