| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc review for parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2020-04-13 09:52:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+_CcGmVqn8cRoSCdZeeoPdtoH0bXNOuuzqeub9ZeJ=vQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:00 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> |Copy the index
> |bulk-deletion result returned from ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup to
> |the DSM segment if it's the first time [???] because they allocate locally
> |and it's possible that an index will be vacuumed by a different
> |vacuum process the next time."
>
> Is it correct to say: "..if it's the first iteration" and "different process on
> the next iteration" ? Or "cycle" ?
>
"cycle" sounds better. I have changed the patch as per your latest
comments. Let me know what you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5-0001-Comments-and-doc-fixes-for-commit-40d964ec99.patch | application/octet-stream | 15.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-04-13 09:53:26 | Re: Corruption during WAL replay |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-04-13 09:24:53 | Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error |