| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel vacuum comments |
| Date: | 2021-12-15 02:53:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkNYPNJeYSKBpOXv5F6-wUW4rZHPOCQhqYOme-CNOiAOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks, I can take care of this before committing. The v9-0001* looks
> good to me as well, so, I am planning to commit that tomorrow unless I
> see more comments or any objection to that.
I would like to thank both Masahiko and yourself for working on this.
It's important.
> There is still pending
> work related to moving parallel vacuum code to a separate file and a
> few other pending comments that are still under discussion. We can
> take care of those in subsequent patches. Do, let me know if you or
> others think differently?
I'm +1 on moving it into a new file. I think that that division makes
perfect sense. It will make the design of parallel VACUUM easier to
understand. I believe that index vacuuming (whether or not it involves
parallel workers) ought to be a more or less distinct operation to
heap vacuuming. With a distinct autovacuum schedule (well, the
schedule would be related, but still distinct).
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-12-15 03:01:19 | Re: parallel vacuum comments |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-12-15 02:52:12 | Re: WIN32 pg_import_system_collations |