| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-03-11 00:03:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_bc_hXXCf8um6snohxL3d_vO5LJCV+JnCY2ZetDw-o2Ow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 1:42 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> I've attached the updated version patches.
I've started trying to review this and realized that, while I'm
familiar with heap vacuuming code, I'm not familiar enough with the
vacuumparallel.c machinery to be of help without much additional
study. As such, I have mainly focused on reading the comments in your
code.
I think your comment in vacuumlazy.c describing the design could use
more detail and a bit of massaging.
For example, I don't know what you mean when you say:
* We could require different number of parallel vacuum workers for each phase
* for various factors such as table size and number of indexes.
Does that refer to something you did implement or you are saying we
could do that in the future?
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-03-11 00:06:27 | Re: per backend WAL statistics |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-03-11 00:00:16 | Re: Adding a '--clean-publisher-objects' option to 'pg_createsubscriber' utility. |