Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+7gmQDNsYhZx1Fw0O+=_y23427oF+w5+FyzGU-5Q8kxg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:39 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 12:43, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In this function, if ParallelVacuumIsActive, we perform the parallel
> > vacuum for all the index for which parallel vacuum is supported and
> > once that is over we finish vacuuming remaining indexes for which
> > parallel vacuum is not supported.  But, my question is that inside
> > lazy_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes, we wait for all the workers
> > to finish their job then only we start with the sequential vacuuming
> > shouldn't we start that immediately as soon as the leader
> > participation is over in the parallel vacuum?
>
> If we do that, while the leader process is vacuuming indexes that
> don't not support parallel vacuum sequentially some workers might be
> vacuuming for other indexes. Isn't it a problem?
>

Can you please explain what problem do you see with that?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: PHJ file leak.
Next
From: btfujiitkp
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?