Re: parallel vacuum comments

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed with the above two points.
> > >
> > > I've attached updated patches that incorporated the above comments
> > > too. Please review them.
> > >
> >
> > I have made the following minor changes to the 0001 patch: (a) An
> > assert was removed from dead_items_max_items() which I added back. (b)
> > Removed an unnecessary semicolon from one of the statements in
> > compute_parallel_vacuum_workers(). (c) Changed comments at a few
> > places. (d) moved all parallel_vacuum_* related functions together.
> > (e) ran pgindent and slightly modify the commit message.
> >
> > Let me know what you think of the attached?
>
> Thank you for updating the patch!
>
> The patch also moves some functions, e.g., update_index_statistics()
> is moved without code changes. I agree to move functions for
> consistency but that makes the review hard and the patch complicated.
> I think it's better to do improving the parallel vacuum code and
> moving functions in separate patches.
>

Okay, I thought it might be better to keep all parallel_vacuum_*
related functions together but we can keep that in a separate patch
Feel free to submit without those changes. In fact, if we go for your
current 0002 then that might not be even required as we move all those
functions to a new file.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.