From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2025-02-26 00:49:00 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoC5PZLomhMNTEUBmovLx5GDWg+JAD_X_k7L9GbZhrerug@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:44 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 5:14 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Given that we have only about one month until the feature freeze, I
> > find that it's realistic to introduce either one parallelism for PG18
> > and at least we might want to implement the one first that is more
> > beneficial and helpful for users. Since we found that parallel phase
> > III is not very efficient in many cases, I'm thinking that in terms of
> > PG18 development, we might want to switch focus to parallel phase I,
> > and then go for phase III if we have time.
>
> Okay, well let me know how I can be helpful. Should I be reviewing a
> version that is already posted?
Thank you so much. I'm going to submit the latest patches in a few
days for parallelizing the phase I. I would appreciate it if you could
review that version.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-02-26 00:53:09 | Re: Remove wal_[sync|write][_time] from pg_stat_wal and track_wal_io_timing |
Previous Message | Sadeq Dousti | 2025-02-26 00:27:23 | Re: psql \dh: List High-Level (Root) Tables and Indexes |