From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-11-22 09:19:06 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KtA7vFm+C_R-KF1z38inNnnJWx57bobUPBcrZRm9cSGw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:01 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I've attached the latest version patch set. The patch set includes all
> discussed points regarding index AM options as well as shared cost
> balance. Also I added some test cases used all types of index AM.
>
I have reviewed the first patch and made a number of modifications
that include adding/modifying comments, made some corrections and
modifications in the documentation. You can find my changes in
v33-0001-delta-amit.patch. See, if those look okay to you, if so,
please include those in the next version of the patch. I am attaching
both your version of patch and delta changes by me.
One comment on v33-0002-Add-parallel-option-to-VACUUM-command:
+ /* Estimate size for shared information -- PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_SHARED */
+ est_shared = MAXALIGN(add_size(SizeOfLVShared, BITMAPLEN
(nindexes)));
..
+ shared->offset = add_size(SizeOfLVShared, BITMAPLEN(nindexes));
Here, don't you need to do MAXALIGN to set offset as we are computing
it that way while estimating shared memory? If not, then probably,
some comments are required to explain it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v33-0001-Add-index-AM-field-and-callback-for-parallel-ind.patch | application/octet-stream | 14.9 KB |
v33-0001-delta-amit.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-11-22 09:41:41 | Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large? |
Previous Message | Juan José Santamaría Flecha | 2019-11-22 08:55:46 | Re: TAP tests aren't using the magic words for Windows file access |