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

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > *
>> > +end_parallel_vacuum(LVParallelState *lps, Relation *Irel, int nindexes)
>> > {
>> > ..
>> > + /* Shutdown worker processes and destroy the parallel context */
>> > + WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(lps->pcxt);
>> > ..
>> > }
>> >
>> > Do we really need to call WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish here as it
>> > must have been called in lazy_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes
>> > before this time?
>>
>> No, removed.
>
>
> + /* Shutdown worker processes and destroy the parallel context */
> + DestroyParallelContext(lps->pcxt);
>
> But you forget to update the comment.

Fixed.

>
> Few more comments:
> --------------------------------
> 1.
> +/*
> + * Parallel Index vacuuming and index cleanup routine used by both the leader
> + * process and worker processes. Unlike single process vacuum, we don't update
> + * index statistics after cleanup index since it is not allowed during
> + * parallel mode, instead copy index bulk-deletion results from the local
> + * memory to the DSM segment and update them at the end of parallel lazy
> + * vacuum.
> + */
> +static void
> +do_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes(Relation *Irel, int nindexes,
> +  IndexBulkDeleteResult **stats,
> +  LVShared *lvshared,
> +  LVDeadTuples *dead_tuples)
> +{
> + /* Loop until all indexes are vacuumed */
> + for (;;)
> + {
> + int idx;
> +
> + /* Get an index number to process */
> + idx = pg_atomic_fetch_add_u32(&(lvshared->nprocessed), 1);
> +
> + /* Done for all indexes? */
> + if (idx >= nindexes)
> + break;
> +
> + /*
> + * Update the pointer to the corresponding bulk-deletion result
> + * if someone has already updated it.
> + */
> + if (lvshared->indstats[idx].updated &&
> + stats[idx] == NULL)
> + stats[idx] = &(lvshared->indstats[idx].stats);
> +
> + /* Do vacuum or cleanup one index */
> + if (!lvshared->for_cleanup)
> + lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], dead_tuples,
> +  lvshared->reltuples);
> + else
> + lazy_cleanup_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], lvshared->reltuples,
> +   lvshared->estimated_count);
>
> It seems we always run index cleanup via parallel worker which seems overkill because the cleanup index generally
scansthe index only when bulkdelete was not performed.  In some cases like for hash index, it doesn't do anything even
bulkdelete is not called.  OTOH, for brin index, it does the main job during cleanup but we might be able to always
allowindex cleanup by parallel worker for brin indexes if we remove the allocation in brinbulkdelete which I am not
sureis of any use. 
>
> I think we shouldn't call cleanup via parallel worker unless bulkdelete hasn't been performed on the index.
>

Agreed. Fixed.

> 2.
> - for (i = 0; i < nindexes; i++)
> - lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[i],
> -  &indstats[i],
> -  vacrelstats);
> + lazy_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes(vacrelstats, Irel, nindexes,
> +   indstats, lps, false);
>
> Indentation is not proper.  You might want to run pgindent.

Fixed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada