Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:04, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Hi
Below are some more review comments for v48 patch.

1.
#include "storage/bufpage.h"
#include "storage/lockdefs.h"
+#include "storage/shm_toc.h"
+#include "storage/dsm.h"

Here, order of header file is not alphabetically. (storage/dsm.h
should come before storage/lockdefs.h)

2.
+ /* No index supports parallel vacuum */
+ if (nindexes_parallel == 0)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* The leader process takes one index */
+ nindexes_parallel--;

Above code can be rearranged as:

+ /* The leader process takes one index */
+ nindexes_parallel--;
+
+ /* No index supports parallel vacuum */
+ if (nindexes_parallel <= 0)
+ return 0;

If we do like this, then in some cases, we can skip some calculations
of parallel workers.

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