Re: Parallel heap vacuum

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 4:49 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I've attached the updated patches that make the phase I (heap
scanning) parallel. I'll share the benchmark results soon.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com