On Monday, December 13, 2021 2:12 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM Masahiko Sawada > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@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. >
Thanks for your patch. I tested your patch and tried some cases, like large indexes, different types of indexes, it worked well. Besides, I noticed a typo as follows: + /* Estimate size for index vacuum stats -- PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_STATS */ "PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_STATS" should be "PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_INDEX_STATS". Regards, Tang