| 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>, 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: | 2019-03-07 03:57:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoCU6xKL=+aCL2F-_PkxTV-pBLUOxjL+4ZhiD8z2bwubOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:54 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:26 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Okay, attached the latest version of patch set. I've incorporated all
> > comments I got and separated the patch for making vacuum options a
> > Node (0001 patch). And the patch doesn't use parallel_workers. It
> > might be proposed in the another form again in the future if
> > requested.
>
> Why make it a Node? I mean I think a struct makes sense, but what's
> the point of giving it a NodeTag?
>
Well, the main point is consistency with other nodes and keep the code clean.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Perumal Raj | 2019-03-07 05:44:16 | Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2019-03-07 03:24:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid |