On 01 July 2014 03:48, Alvaro Wrote, > > In particular, pgpipe is almost an exact duplicate between them, > > except the copy in vac_parallel.c has fallen behind changes made to > > parallel.c. (Those changes would have fixed the Windows warnings). > I > > think that this function (and perhaps other parts as > > well--"exit_horribly" for example) need to refactored into a common > > file that both files can include. I don't know where the best place > > for that would be, though. (I haven't done this type of refactoring > > myself.) > > I think commit d2c1740dc275543a46721ed254ba3623f63d2204 is apropos. > Maybe we should move pgpipe back to src/port and have pg_dump and this > new thing use that. I'm not sure about the rest of duplication in > vac_parallel.c; there might be a lot in common with what > pg_dump/parallel.c does too. Having two copies of code is frowned upon > for good reasons. This patch introduces 1200 lines of new code in > vac_parallel.c, ugh.
> > If we really require 1200 lines to get parallel vacuum working for > vacuumdb, I would question the wisdom of this effort. To me, it seems > better spent improving autovacuum to cover whatever it is that this > patch is supposed to be good for --- or maybe just enable having a > shell script that launches multiple vacuumdb instances in parallel ... Thanks for looking into the patch, I think if we use shell script for launching parallel vacuumdb, we cannot get complete control of dividing the task, If we directly divide table b/w multiple process, it may happen some process get very big tables then it will be as good as one process is doing operation. In this patch at a time we assign only one table to each process and whichever process finishes fast, we assign new table, this way all process get equal sharing of the task. Thanks & Regards, Dilip Kumar -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
