On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:01 PM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Thur, Dec 2, 2021 8:31 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've attached updated patches. > > > > The first patch is the main patch for refactoring parallel vacuum code; > > removes > > bitmap-related code and renames function names for consistency. The second > > patch moves these parallel-related codes to vacuumparallel.c as well as > > common functions that are used by both lazyvacuum.c and vacuumparallel.c to > > vacuum.c. The third patch adds regression tests for parallel vacuum on > > different kinds of indexes with multiple index scans. Please review them. > > Thanks for updating the patch. > I reviewed the 0001 patch and didn’t find some big issues in the patch. > > I only have a personally suggestion for the following function name: > > parallel_vacuum_process_unsafe_indexes > parallel_vacuum_index_is_parallel_safe > > It seems not only "unsafe" index are processed in the above functions, > but also index which is unsuitable(based on > parallel_vacuum_should_skip_index). >
I have given one comment to remove the call to parallel_vacuum_should_skip_index() from parallel_vacuum_index_is_parallel_safe(). If Sawada-San follows that then maybe your point will be addressed. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
