On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:41 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:22 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. > > > > Are we planning to do this only if it is called from parallel vacuum > > workers or in general? > > > > I think we can do it in general as adding some check for parallel > vacuum there will look bit hackish. I agree with that point. It is not clear if we get enough > benefit by keeping it for cleanup phase of the index as discussed in > emails above. Heikki, others, let us know if you don't agree here.
I have prepared a first version of the patch. Currently, I am performing an empty page deletion for all the cases. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
delete_emptypages_in_gistbulkdelete_v1.patch
Description: Binary data
