Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqT36F5f9yp6L-Xvh3xPjhsYb+mmq==Mn5-cRMTTMzFyjA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I don't have a good solution for this problem so far.
> We might need to improve group locking mechanism for the updating
> operation or came up with another approach to resolve this problem.
> For example, one possible idea is that the launcher process allocates
> vm and fsm enough in advance in order to avoid extending fork relation
> by parallel workers, but it's not resolve fundamental problem.

Marked as returned with feedback because of lack of activity and...
Feedback provided.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Copy-editing for contrib/pg_visibility documentation.