From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Subject: | Re: Set access strategy for parallel vacuum workers |
Date: | 2021-04-08 03:17:47 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JBQHRRXXOBoU1x7m2ApYoCUczDvbqwb2TW9hmJ4-srDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:11 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 7:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > During recent developments in the vacuum, it has been noticed [1] that
> > parallel vacuum workers don't use any buffer access strategy. I think
> > we can fix it either by propagating the required information from the
> > leader or just get the access strategy in each worker separately. The
> > patches for both approaches for PG-13 are attached.
>
> Thank you for starting the new thread.
>
> I'd prefer to just have parallel vacuum workers get BAS_VACUUM buffer
> access strategy. If we want to have set different buffer access
> strategies or ring buffer sizes for the leader and worker processes,
> the former approach would be better. But I think we're unlikely to
> want to do that, especially in back branches.
>
Fair enough. Just to be clear, you prefer to go with
fix_access_strategy_workers_11.patch, right?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-04-08 03:22:09 | Re: Set access strategy for parallel vacuum workers |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-08 03:14:37 | Re: Set access strategy for parallel vacuum workers |