RE: Parallel heap vacuum

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Parallel heap vacuum
Date: 2024-11-11 13:08:43
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB5692F5A9AAC47986B53F12F1F5582@TYAPR01MB5692.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Sawda-san,

>
> I've attached new version patches that fixes failures reported by
> cfbot. I hope these changes make cfbot happy.

Thanks for updating the patch and sorry for delaying the reply. I confirmed cfbot
for Linux/Windows said ok.
I'm still learning the feature so I can post only one comment :-(.

I wanted to know whether TidStoreBeginIterateShared() was needed. IIUC, pre-existing API,
TidStoreBeginIterate(), has already accepted the shared TidStore. The only difference
is whether elog(ERROR) exists, but I wonder if it benefits others. Is there another
reason that lazy_vacuum_heap_rel() uses TidStoreBeginIterateShared()?

Another approach is to restrict TidStoreBeginIterate() to support only the local one.
How do you think?

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2024-11-11 13:25:29 Re: Support LIKE with nondeterministic collations
Previous Message Yugo Nagata 2024-11-11 13:02:15 Re: Doc: typo in config.sgml