Thanks for the feedback. I agree with the feedback, except
for
> need to have ParallelVacuumProgress. I see
> parallel_vacuum_update_progress() uses this value but I think it's
> better to pass ParallelVacuumState to via IndexVacuumInfo.
I was trying to avoid passing a pointer to
ParallelVacuumState in IndexVacuuminfo.
ParallelVacuumProgress is implemented in the same
way as VacuumSharedCostBalance and
VacuumActiveNWorkers. See vacuum.h
These values are reset at the start of a parallel vacuum cycle
and reset at the end of an index vacuum cycle.
This seems like a better approach and less invasive.
What would be a reason not to go with this approach?
> parallel_vacuum_update_progress() is typically called every 1GB so I
> think we don't need to worry about unnecessary update. Also, I think
> this code doesn't work when pgstat_track_activities is false. Instead,
> I think that in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(), we can check
> the value of pvs->nindexes_completed and update the progress if there
> is an update or it's first time.
I agree that we don’t need to worry about unnecessary updates
in parallel_vacuum_update_progress since we are calling
every 1GB. I also don't think we should do anything additional
in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish since here we are only
updating every 1 second.
Thanks,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services
