Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Date: 2020-01-08 13:16:38
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JxWAYTSM4NpTi7Tz=sPetbWBWZPpHKxLoEKb=gMi=GGA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 6:48 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> In other thread "parallel vacuum options/syntax" [1], Amit Kapila asked opinion about syntax for making normal vacuum to parallel. From that thread, I can see that people are in favor of option(b) to implement. So I tried to implement option(b) on the top of v41 patch set and implemented a delta patch.
>

I looked at your code and changed it slightly to allow the vacuum to
be performed in parallel by default. Apart from that, I have made a
few other modifications (a) changed the macro SizeOfLVDeadTuples as
preferred by Tomas [1], (b) updated the documentation, (c) changed a
few comments.

The first two patches are the same. I have not posted the patch
related to the FAST option as I am not sure we have a consensus for
that and I have also intentionally left DISABLE_LEADER_PARTICIPATION
related patch to avoid confusion.

What do you think of the attached? Sawada-san, kindly verify the
changes and let me know your opinion.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20191229212354.tqivttn23lxjg2jz%40development

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Delete-empty-pages-in-each-pass-during-GIST-VACUUM.patch application/octet-stream 15.7 KB
v42-0001-Introduce-IndexAM-fields-for-parallel-vacuum.patch application/octet-stream 10.3 KB
v42-0002-Allow-vacuum-command-to-process-indexes-in-parallel.patch application/octet-stream 79.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-01-08 13:17:04 Re: sidewinder has one failure
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2020-01-08 12:36:52 Re: Fastpath while arranging the changes in LSN order in logical decoding