Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 20:29, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:50 PM Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 18:42, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:01 PM Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > I took all attached patches(v32-01 to v32-4) and one Dilip's patch from "Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum" mail thread. On the top of all these patches, I created one more patch to test parallel vacuum functionally for all existence test suite.
> >
> > Thank you for looking at this patch!
> >
> > > > For reference, I am attaching patch.
> > > >
> > > > What does this patch?
> > > > As we know that if we give parallel option with vacuum, then only we are vacuuming using parallel workers. So to test, I used existence guc force_parallel_mode and tested parallel vacuuming.
> > > >
> > > > If force_parallel_mode is set as regress, then if parallel option is not given with vacuum, I am forcing to use parallel workers for vacuum. If there is only one index and parallel degree is not given with vacuum(or parallel option is not given), and force_parallel_mode = regress, then I am launching one parallel worker(I am not doing work by leader in this case), but if there is more than one index, then i am using leader as a worker for one index and launching workers for all other indexes.
> > > >
> > > > After applying this patch and setting force_parallel_mode = regress, all test cases are passing (make-check world)
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions regarding my patch. Should we do vacuuming using parallel workers even if force_parallel_mode is set as on, or we should use new GUC to test parallel worker vacuum for existence test suite?
> > >
> > > IMHO, with force_parallel_mode=on we don't need to do anything here
> > > because that is useful for normal query parallelism where if the user
> > > thinks that the parallel plan should have been selected by the planer
> > > but planer did not select the parallel plan then the user can force
> > > and check. But, vacuum parallelism is itself forced by the user so
> > > there is no point in doing it with force_parallel_mode=on.
> >
> > Yeah I think so too. force_parallel_mode is a planner parameter and
> > parallel vacuum can be forced by vacuum option.
> >
> > > However,
> > > force_parallel_mode=regress is useful for testing the vacuum with an
> > > existing test suit.
> >
> > If we want to control the leader participation by GUC parameter I
> > think we would need to have another GUC parameter rather than using
> > force_parallel_mode.
> I think the purpose is not to disable the leader participation,
> instead, I think the purpose of 'force_parallel_mode=regress' is that
> without changing the existing test suit we can execute the existing
> vacuum commands in the test suit with the worker. I did not study the
> patch but the idea should be that if "force_parallel_mode=regress"
> then normal vacuum command should be executed in parallel by using 1
> worker.

Oh I got it. Considering the current parallel vacuum design I'm not
sure that we can cover more test cases by forcing parallel vacuum
during existing test suite because most of these would be tables with
several indexes and one index vacuum cycle. It might be better to add
more test cases for parallel vacuum.

--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services