| 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: | 2019-11-13 02:38:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Le0rAfOpO9zVL8GkVu_SOSfocU9Fcc5o-LAYNPTwMUuw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 22:33, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hmm, I think we should define these flags in the most simple way.
> > Your previous proposal sounds okay to me.
>
> Okay. As you mentioned before, my previous proposal won't work for
> existing index AMs that don't set amparallelvacuumoptions.
>
You mean to say it won't work because it has to set multiple flags
which means that if IndexAm user doesn't set the value of
amparallelvacuumoptions then it won't work?
> But since we
> have amcanparallelvacuum which is false by default I think we don't
> need to worry about backward compatibility problem. The existing index
> AM will use neither parallel bulk-deletion nor parallel cleanup by
> default. When it wants to support parallel vacuum they will set
> amparallelvacuumoptions as well as amcanparallelvacuum.
>
Hmm, I was not thinking of multiple variables rather only one
variable. The default value should indicate that IndexAm doesn't
support a parallel vacuum. It might be that we need to do it the way
I originally proposed the different values of amparallelvacuumoptions
or maybe some variant of it where the default value can clearly say
that IndexAm doesn't support a parallel vacuum.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-11-13 02:51:02 | Re: [proposal] recovery_target "latest" |
| Previous Message | Daniel Wood | 2019-11-13 02:23:33 | Re: 'Invalid lp' during heap_xlog_delete |