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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: doc review for parallel vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JoYKBcAJ5sgvbwGFwyu1Jr6faQqa8nn8tQuuewmpXs-Q@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 Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:16 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> Also, this part still doesn't read well:
>
> -        * amvacuumcleanup to the DSM segment if it's the first time to get it?
> -        * from them? because they? allocate it locally and it's possible that an
> -        * index will be vacuumed by the different vacuum process at the next
>
> If you change "it" and "them" and "it" and say "*a* different", then it'll be
> ok.
>

I am not sure if I follow how exactly you want to change it but still
let me know what you think about if we change it like: "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 the different
vacuum process at the next time."

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more.
Next
From: Yugo NAGATA
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance