| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tomas Vondra' <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Parallel heap vacuum |
| Date: | 2024-12-11 02:34:29 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB56929B3F62DE14C4FD6210FCF53E2@TYAPR01MB5692.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tomas,
> 1) I really like the idea of introducing "compute_workers" callback to
> the heap AM interface. I faced a similar issue with calculating workers
> for index builds, because right now plan_create_index_workers is doing
> that the logic works for btree, but really not brin etc. It didn't occur
> to me we might make this part of the index AM ...
+1, so let's keep the proposed style. Or, can we even propose the idea
to table/index access method API?
I've considered bit and the point seemed that which arguments should be required.
> 4) I think it would be good to have some sort of README explaining how
> the parallel heap vacuum works, i.e. how it's driven by FSM. Took me a
> while to realize how the workers coordinate which blocks to scan.
I love the idea, it is quite helpful for reviewers like me.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-12-11 02:44:05 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-12-11 02:27:00 | Re: Wrong results with right-semi-joins |