Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:27, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch! I have a few small comments.
> >
>
> I have adapted all your changes, fixed the comment by Mahendra related
> to initializing parallel state only when there are at least two
> indexes. Additionally, I have changed a few comments (make the
> reference to parallel vacuum consistent, at some places we were
> referring it as 'parallel lazy vacuum' and at other places it was
> 'parallel index vacuum').
>
> > The
> > rest looks good to me.
> >
>
> Okay, I think the patch is in good shape. I am planning to read it a
> few more times (at least 2 times) and then probably will commit it
> early next week (Monday or Tuesday) unless there are any major
> comments. I have already committed the API patch (4d8a8d0c73).
>

Hi,
Thanks Amit for fixing review comments.

I reviewed v48 patch and below are some comments.

1.
+ * based on the number of indexes. -1 indicates a parallel vacuum is

I think, above should be like "-1 indicates that parallel vacuum is"

2.
+/* Variables for cost-based parallel vacuum */

At the end of comment, there is 2 spaces. I think, it should be only 1
space.

3.
I think, we should add a test case for parallel option(when degree is not
specified).
*Ex:*
postgres=# VACUUM (PARALLEL) tmp;
ERROR: parallel option requires a value between 0 and 1024
LINE 1: VACUUM (PARALLEL) tmp;
^
postgres=#

Because above error is added in this parallel patch, so we should have test
case for this to increase code coverage.

--
Thanks and Regards
Mahendra Singh Thalor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com