On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed with the above two points.
> > > >
> > > > I've attached updated patches that incorporated the above comments
> > > > too. Please review them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have made the following minor changes to the 0001 patch: (a) An
> > > assert was removed from dead_items_max_items() which I added back. (b)
> > > Removed an unnecessary semicolon from one of the statements in
> > > compute_parallel_vacuum_workers(). (c) Changed comments at a few
> > > places. (d) moved all parallel_vacuum_* related functions together.
> > > (e) ran pgindent and slightly modify the commit message.
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think of the attached?
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch!
> >
> > The patch also moves some functions, e.g., update_index_statistics()
> > is moved without code changes. I agree to move functions for
> > consistency but that makes the review hard and the patch complicated.
> > I think it's better to do improving the parallel vacuum code and
> > moving functions in separate patches.
> >
>
> Okay, I thought it might be better to keep all parallel_vacuum_*
> related functions together but we can keep that in a separate patch
> Feel free to submit without those changes.
I've attached the patch. I've just moved some functions back but not
done other changes.
> In fact, if we go for your
> current 0002 then that might not be even required as we move all those
> functions to a new file.
Right. So it seems not necessary.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
