On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:05 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:28 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> Some more comments..
Thank you!
> 1.
> + for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
> + {
> + if (!for_cleanup)
> + lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], vacrelstats->dead_tuples,
> + vacrelstats->old_live_tuples);
> + else
> + {
> + /* Cleanup one index and update index statistics */
> + lazy_cleanup_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], vacrelstats->new_rel_tuples,
> + vacrelstats->tupcount_pages < vacrelstats->rel_pages);
> +
> + lazy_update_index_statistics(Irel[idx], stats[idx]);
> +
> + if (stats[idx])
> + pfree(stats[idx]);
> + }
>
> I think instead of checking for_cleanup variable for every index of
> the loop we better move loop inside, like shown below?
Fixed.
>
> if (!for_cleanup)
> for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
> lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], vacrelstats->dead_tuples,
> else
> for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
> {
> lazy_cleanup_index
> lazy_update_index_statistics
> ...
> }
>
> 2.
> +static void
> +lazy_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes(LVRelStats *vacrelstats, Relation *Irel,
> + int nindexes, IndexBulkDeleteResult **stats,
> + LVParallelState *lps, bool for_cleanup)
> +{
> + int idx;
> +
> + Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
> +
> + /* no job if the table has no index */
> + if (nindexes <= 0)
> + return;
>
> Wouldn't it be good idea to call this function only if nindexes > 0?
>
I realized the callers of this function should pass nindexes > 0
because they attempt to do index vacuuming or index cleanup. So it
should be an assertion rather than returning. Thoughts?
> 3.
> +/*
> + * Vacuum or cleanup indexes with parallel workers. This function must be
> used
> + * by the parallel vacuum leader process.
> + */
> +static void
> +lazy_parallel_vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes(LVRelStats *vacrelstats,
> Relation *Irel,
> + int nindexes, IndexBulkDeleteResult **stats,
> + LVParallelState *lps, bool for_cleanup)
>
> If you see this function there is no much common code between
> for_cleanup and without for_cleanup except these 3-4 statement.
> LaunchParallelWorkers(lps->pcxt);
> /* Create the log message to report */
> initStringInfo(&buf);
> ...
> /* Wait for all vacuum workers to finish */
> WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(lps->pcxt);
>
> Other than that you have got a lot of checks like this
> + if (!for_cleanup)
> + {
> + }
> + else
> + {
> }
>
> I think code would be much redable if we have 2 functions one for
> vaccum (lazy_parallel_vacuum_indexes) and another for
> cleanup(lazy_parallel_cleanup_indexes).
Seems good idea. Fixed.
>
> 4.
> * of index scans performed. So we don't use maintenance_work_mem memory for
> * the TID array, just enough to hold as many heap tuples as fit on one page.
> *
> + * Lazy vacuum supports parallel execution with parallel worker processes. In
> + * parallel lazy vacuum, we perform both index vacuuming and index cleanup
> with
> + * parallel worker processes. Individual indexes are processed by one vacuum
>
> Spacing after the "." is not uniform, previous comment is using 2
> space and newly
> added is using 1 space.
>
FIxed.
The code has been fixed in my local repository. After incorporated the
all comments I got so far I'll submit the updated version patch.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
