Re: doc review for parallel vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: doc review for parallel vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+_CcGmVqn8cRoSCdZeeoPdtoH0bXNOuuzqeub9ZeJ=vQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: doc review for parallel vacuum  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: doc review for parallel vacuum  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:00 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> |Copy the index
> |bulk-deletion result returned from ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup to
> |the DSM segment if it's the first time [???] because they allocate locally
> |and it's possible that an index will be vacuumed by a different
> |vacuum process the next time."
>
> Is it correct to say: "..if it's the first iteration" and "different process on
> the next iteration" ?  Or "cycle" ?
>

"cycle" sounds better.  I have changed the patch as per your latest
comments.  Let me know what you think?

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Corruption during WAL replay