On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:04 AM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 12:50, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM Masahiko Sawada > > <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > Okay, would it better if we get rid of this variable and have code like > > below? > > > > /* Skip the indexes that can be processed by parallel workers */ > > if ( !(get_indstats(lps->lvshared, i) == NULL || > > skip_parallel_vacuum_index(Irel[i], lps->lvshared))) > > continue; > > Make sense to me. >
I have changed the comment and condition to make it a positive test so that it is more clear. > > ... > > > Agreed. But with the updated patch the PARALLEL option without the > > > parallel degree doesn't display warning because params->nworkers = 0 > > > in that case. So how about restoring params->nworkers at the end of > > > vacuum_rel()? > > > > > > > I had also thought on those lines, but I was not entirely sure about > > this resetting of workers. Today, again thinking about it, it seems > > the idea Mahendra is suggesting that is giving an error if the > > parallel degree is not specified seems reasonable to me. This means > > Vacuum (parallel), Vacuum (parallel) <tbl_name>, etc. will give an > > error "parallel degree must be specified". This idea has merit as now > > we are supporting a parallel vacuum by default, so a 'parallel' option > > without a parallel degree doesn't have any meaning. If we do that, > > then we don't need to do anything additional about the handling of > > temp tables (other than what patch is already doing) as well. What do > > you think? > > > > Good point! Agreed. > Thanks, changed accordingly. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v47-0001-Introduce-IndexAM-fields-for-parallel-vacuum.patch
Description: Binary data
v47-0002-Allow-vacuum-command-to-process-indexes-in-parallel.patch
Description: Binary data
