On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > > On 16 October 2019 12:57:03 CEST, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> > >wrote: > >> All things > >> considered, I'm not sure which is better. > > > >Yeah, this is a tough call to make, but if we can allow it to delete > >the pages in bulkdelete conditionally for parallel vacuum workers, > >then it would be better. > > Yeah, if it's needed for parallel vacuum, maybe that tips the scale. >
makes sense. I think we can write a patch for it and prepare the parallel vacuum patch on top of it. Once the parallel vacuum is in a committable shape, we can commit the gist-index related patch first followed by parallel vacuum patch. > Hopefully, multi-pass vacuums are rare in practice. And we should lift the > current 1 GB limit on the dead TID array, replacing it with something more > compact and expandable, to make multi-pass vacuums even more rare. So I don't > think we need to jump through many hoops to optimize the multi-pass case. > Yeah, that will be a good improvement. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
