| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <akapila(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Allow vacuum command to process indexes in parallel. |
| Date: | 2020-03-30 04:14:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+JtO6MRZZrYAUi790c20DoH94=fiskt_ok9cjuaDcnjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:18 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > 2076
> > 2077 if ((shared_balance >= VacuumCostLimit) &&
> > >>> CID ...: Incorrect expression (UNINTENDED_INTEGER_DIVISION)
> > >>> Dividing integer expressions "VacuumCostLimit" and "nworkers", and then converting the integer quotient to type "double". Any remainder, or fractional part of the quotient, is ignored.
> > 2078 (VacuumCostBalanceLocal > 0.5 * (VacuumCostLimit / nworkers)))
> > 2079 {
> > 2080 /* Compute sleep time based on the local cost balance */
> > 2081 msec = VacuumCostDelay * VacuumCostBalanceLocal / VacuumCostLimit;
> > 2082 pg_atomic_sub_fetch_u32(VacuumSharedCostBalance, VacuumCostBalanceLocal);
> > 2083 VacuumCostBalanceLocal = 0;
>
> Which seems like a fair enough complaint?
>
Yeah, how can we set up and test a fix for this? Where can I see these results?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-03-30 04:52:34 | pgsql: Allow the planner-related functions and hook to accept the query |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-03-30 03:16:06 | pgsql: Expose BufferUsageAccumDiff(). |