Hi
> I think I got your point. Your proposal is that it's more efficient if
> we make the leader process vacuum the index that can be processed only
> the leader process (i.e. indexes not supporting parallel index vacuum)
> while workers are processing indexes supporting parallel index vacuum,
> right? That way, we can process indexes in parallel as much as
> possible.
Right
> So maybe we can call vacuum_or_cleanup_skipped_indexes first
> and then call vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker. But I'm not sure that
> there are parallel-safe remaining indexes after the leader finished
> vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker, as described on your proposal.
I meant that after processing missing indexes (not supporting parallel index vacuum), the leader can start processing
indexesthat support the parallel index vacuum, along with parallel workers.
Exactly call vacuum_or_cleanup_skipped_indexes after start parallel workers but before vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker
orsomething with similar effect.
If we have 0 missed indexes - parallel vacuum will run as in current implementation, with leader participation.
Sorry for my unclear english...
regards, Sergei
