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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KtA7vFm+C_R-KF1z38inNnnJWx57bobUPBcrZRm9cSGw@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  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:01 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> I've attached the latest version patch set. The patch set includes all
> discussed points regarding index AM options as well as shared cost
> balance. Also I added some test cases used all types of index AM.
>

I have reviewed the first patch and made a number of modifications
that include adding/modifying comments, made some corrections and
modifications in the documentation. You can find my changes in
v33-0001-delta-amit.patch.  See, if those look okay to you, if so,
please include those in the next version of the patch.  I am attaching
both your version of patch and delta changes by me.

One comment on v33-0002-Add-parallel-option-to-VACUUM-command:

+ /* Estimate size for shared information -- PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_SHARED */
+ est_shared = MAXALIGN(add_size(SizeOfLVShared, BITMAPLEN
(nindexes)));
..
+ shared->offset = add_size(SizeOfLVShared, BITMAPLEN(nindexes));

Here, don't you need to do MAXALIGN to set offset as we are computing
it that way while estimating shared memory?  If not, then probably,
some comments are required to explain it.


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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Date:
Subject: Re: TAP tests aren't using the magic words for Windows file access
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?