Re: parallel vacuum comments

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:43 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:55 AM houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> > <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 4)
> > >
> > > Just a personal suggestion for the parallel related function name. Since Andres
> > > wanted a uniform naming pattern. Mabe we can rename the following functions:
> > >
> > > end|begin_parallel_vacuum => parallel_vacuum_end|begin
> > > perform_parallel_index_bulkdel|cleanup => parallel_vacuum_index_bulkdel|cleanup
> > >
> > > So that all the parallel related functions' name is like parallel_vacuum_xxx.
> > >
> >
> > BTW, do we really need functions
> > perform_parallel_index_bulkdel|cleanup? Both do some minimal
> > assignments and then call parallel_vacuum_all_indexes() and there is
> > just one caller of each. Isn't it better to just do those assignments
> > in the caller and directly call parallel_vacuum_all_indexes()?
>
> The reason why I declare these two functions are: (1) the fields of
> ParallelVacuumState are not exposed and (2) bulk-deletion and cleanup
> require different arguments (estimated_count is required only by
> cleanup). So if we expose the fields of ParallelVacuumState, the
> caller can do those assignments and directly call
> parallel_vacuum_all_indexes(). But I'm not sure it's good if those
> assignments are the caller's responsibility.
>

Okay, that makes sense. However, I am still not very comfortable with
the function naming suggested by Hou-San, do you have any thoughts on
that?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.