Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 2:17 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Basically, only IndexBulkDeleteResult is now shared across the stage
> > > > so we can move all members to GistVacState and completely get rid of
> > > > GistBulkDeleteResult?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, something like that would be better. Let's try and see how it comes out.
> > I have modified as we discussed. Please take a look.
> >
>
> Thanks, I haven't reviewed this yet, but it seems to be on the right
> lines. Sawada-San, can you please prepare the next version of the
> parallel vacuum patch on top of this patch and enable parallel vacuum
> for Gist indexes?

Yeah I've sent the latest patch set that is built on top of this
patch[1]. BTW I looked at this patch briefly but it looks good to me.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoBMo9dr_QmhT%3DdKh7fmiq7tpx%2ByLHR8nw9i5NZ-SgtaVg%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada