On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
+1 I can write a patch for the same. > > 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. +1 -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
