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: | 2019-03-29 02:26:53 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBaFcKBAeL5_++j+Vzir2vBBcF4juW7qH8b3HsQY=Q6+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v21-0001-All-VACUUM-command-options-allow-an-argument.patch | text/x-patch | 6.8 KB |
v21-0002-Add-parallel-option-to-VACUUM-command.patch | text/x-patch | 53.8 KB |
v21-0003-Add-paralell-P-option-to-vacuumdb-command.patch | text/x-patch | 6.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-03-29 02:30:20 | RE: Timeout parameters |
Previous Message | Kuroda, Hayato | 2019-03-29 02:06:32 | RE: Log a sample of transactions |