From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-04-04 10:23:32 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAG09ySYv1Fjb1CJnQ1fn5e_YYnYKpFLopt+2dscb8zig@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:26 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:53 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:31 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Thank you for reviewing the patch.
> >
> > I don't think the approach in v20-0001 is quite right.
> >
> > if (strcmp(opt->defname, "verbose") == 0)
> > - params.options |= VACOPT_VERBOSE;
> > + params.options |= defGetBoolean(opt) ? VACOPT_VERBOSE : 0;
> >
> > It seems to me that it would be better to do declare a separate
> > boolean for each flag at the top; e.g. bool verbose. Then here do
> > verbose = defGetBoolean(opt). And then after the loop do
> > params.options = (verbose ? VACOPT_VERBOSE : 0) | ... similarly for
> > other options.
> >
> > The thing I don't like about the way you have it here is that it's not
> > going to work well for options that are true by default but can
> > optionally be set to false. In that case, you would need to start
> > with the bit set and then clear it, but |= can only set bits, not
> > clear them. I went and looked at the VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP) patch on
> > the other thread and it doesn't have any special handling for that
> > case, which makes me suspect that if you use that patch, the reloption
> > works as expected but VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP false) doesn't actually
> > succeed in disabling index cleanup. The structure I suggested above
> > would fix that.
> >
>
> You're right, the previous patches are wrong. Attached the updated
> version patches.
>
These patches conflict with the current HEAD. Attached the updated patches.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v22-0001-Add-parallel-option-to-VACUUM-command.patch | application/octet-stream | 55.1 KB |
v22-0002-Add-paralell-P-option-to-vacuumdb-command.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-04 10:41:53 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-04 09:42:13 | Re: [HACKERS] generated columns |