Re: parallel vacuum comments

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 2:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, if we go with that then we should set the correct phase
> > > for workers as well?
> >
> > If we have separate error context for the leader (vacuumlazy.c) and
> > workers (vacuumparallel.c), workers don't necessarily need to have the
> > phases such as VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX and
> > VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_INDEX_CLEANUP. They can use PVIndVacStatus in the
> > error callback function as the patch does.
> >
>
> Okay. One minor point, let's change comments atop vacuum.c considering
> the movement of new functions.

Thank you for the comment. Agreed.

I've attached updated version patches. Please review them.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/