On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:20 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay, thanks for the review. Attached is an updated patch. I have
> > additionally run pgindent. I am planning to commit the attached
> > tomorrow unless I see more comments.
>
> Thank you for committing it!
>
I have marked this
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 18:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > -P, --parallel=PARALLEL_DEGREE do parallel vacuum
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, "do parallel vacuum" should be modified. Without
> > > > > >
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:56 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have made few modifications in the patch.
> >
> > 1. I think we should try to block the usage of 'full' and 'parallel'
> > option in the utility rather than allowing the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> > > > > 1.
> > > > > -P, --parallel=PARALLEL_DEGREE do parallel vacuum
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, "do parallel vacuum" should be modified. Without specifying
> > > > > -P, we are still doing parallel vacuum so we can use like
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 12:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:04 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 08:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:13 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:04 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 08:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:13 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 12:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 08:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:13 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 12:11, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:32, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:48, Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:13 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 12:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:32, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 22
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 12:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:32, Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:48, Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Attached the updated
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:32, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:48, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached the updated version patch.
> >
> > Thanks Sawada-san for the re-based patch.
> >
>
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:32, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:48, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:14 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for updating the
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:48, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:14 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for updating the patch. Yeah MAXDEADTUPLES is better than
> > > what I did in the previous version
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:14 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch. Yeah MAXDEADTUPLES is better than
> > what I did in the previous version patch.
> >
>
> Would you like to resubmit your vacuumdb utility patch
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:14 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Thank you for updating the patch. Yeah MAXDEADTUPLES is better than
> what I did in the previous version patch.
>
Would you like to resubmit your vacuumdb utility patch for this
enhancement? I see some old version of it and it seems to
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 7:14 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 18:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have reproduced the issue by defining MaxAllocSize as 1024 and
> > then during debugging, skipped the check related to LAZY_ALLOC_TUPLES.
> > After patch, it fixes the
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 18:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader is not defined by patch. Do you think it
> > > makes sense to add a comment here about
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:46 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader is not defined by patch. Do you think it
> > > makes sense to add a comment here about
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:51 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader is not defined by patch. Do you think it
> > makes sense to add a comment here about the calculation?
>
> Oops, it should be SizeOfLVDeadTuples. Attached
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:35, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 2020-01-20 09:09:35
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:35, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2020-01-20 09:09:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > Pushed, after fixing these two
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:35, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2020-01-20 09:09:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Pushed, after fixing these two comments.
> >
> > When attempting to vacuum a large table I just got:
> >
> >
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-01-20 09:09:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Pushed, after fixing these two comments.
>
> When attempting to vacuum a large table I just got:
>
> postgres=# vacuum FREEZE ;
> ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size
Hi,
On 2020-01-20 09:09:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Pushed, after fixing these two comments.
When attempting to vacuum a large table I just got:
postgres=# vacuum FREEZE ;
ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1073741828
#0 palloc (size=1073741828) at
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:35 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > Below are some review comments for v50 patch.
> >
> > 1.
> > +LVShared
> > +LVSharedIndStats
> > +LVParallelState
> > LWLock
> >
> > I think, LVParallelState should come
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:35 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> Below are some review comments for v50 patch.
>
> 1.
> +LVShared
> +LVSharedIndStats
> +LVParallelState
> LWLock
>
> I think, LVParallelState should come before LVSharedIndStats.
>
> 2.
> +/*
> + * It is possible that
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 2:15 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:18 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Thanks for doing this test again. In the attached patch, I have
> > addressed all the comments and modified a few comments.
>
> I am in favor of the general idea of parallel VACUUM
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:18 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thanks for doing this test again. In the attached patch, I have
> addressed all the comments and modified a few comments.
I am in favor of the general idea of parallel VACUUM that parallelizes
the processing of each index (I haven't looked at
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 14:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dilip Kumar
wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dilip Kumar
wrote:
> > I have performed cost delay testing on the latest test(I have used
> > same script as attahced in [1] and [2].
> >
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I have performed cost delay testing on the latest test(I have used
> same script as attahced in [1] and [2].
> vacuum_cost_delay = 10
> vacuum_cost_limit = 2000
>
> Observation: As we
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
I have performed cost delay testing on the latest test(I have used
same script as attahced in [1] and [2].
vacuum_cost_delay = 10
vacuum_cost_limit = 2000
Observation: As we have concluded earlier, the delay time is in sync
with the I/O
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:34 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:00 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:44 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have few small comments.
> > > >
> > > >
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:00 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:44 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I have few small comments.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > logical streaming for large in-progress transactions+
> > > + /*
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:44 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I have few small comments.
> >
> > 1.
> > logical streaming for large in-progress transactions+
> > + /* Can't perform vacuum in parallel */
> > + if (parallel_workers <= 0)
> > + {
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I have few small comments.
>
> 1.
> logical streaming for large in-progress transactions+
> + /* Can't perform vacuum in parallel */
> + if (parallel_workers <= 0)
> + {
> + pfree(can_parallel_vacuum);
> + return lps;
> + }
>
> why are we
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Right. Most indexes (all?) of tables that are used in the regression
> > > tests are smaller than
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Right. Most indexes (all?) of tables that are used in the regression
> > tests are smaller than min_parallel_index_scan_size. And we set
> > min_parallel_index_scan_size to 0
Hi all,
I would like to share my observation on this PG feature "Block-level
parallel vacuum".
I have tested the earlier patch (i.e v48) with below high-level test
scenarios, and those are working as expected.
- I have played around with these GUC parameters while testing
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Right. Most indexes (all?) of tables that are used in the regression
> tests are smaller than min_parallel_index_scan_size. And we set
> min_parallel_index_scan_size to 0 in vacuum.sql but VACUUM would not
> be speeded-up much because of
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 08:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2.
> > > > I checked time taken by vacuum.sql test. Execution time is almost same
> > > > with and without
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 08:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > 2.
> > > I checked time taken by vacuum.sql test. Execution time is almost same
> > > with and without v45 patch.
> > >
> > > Without v45 patch:
> > > Run1) vacuum
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 08:22, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 1:02 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:31, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:04, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 1:02 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:31, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:04, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I reviewed v48 patch and below are some comments.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > +*
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:31, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:04, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for updating
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 19:04, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for updating the patch! I have a few small comments.
> > >
> >
> > I have adapted all your
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 17:27, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for updating the patch! I have a few small comments.
> >
>
> I have adapted all your changes, fixed the comment by Mahendra related
> to initializing parallel state
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:05 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Thank you for updating the patch! I have a few small comments.
>
I have adapted all your changes, fixed the comment by Mahendra related
to initializing parallel state only when there are at least two
indexes. Additionally, I have
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 12:34, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 17:16, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:17, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 14
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 21:43, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:04 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 12:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, would it better if we get rid of
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 17:16, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:17, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:20, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:17 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> +/*
> + * Try to initialize the parallel vacuum if requested
> + */
> +if (params->nworkers >= 0 && vacrelstats->useindex)
> +{
> +/*
> + * Since parallel workers cannot access data in
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:04 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 12:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >
> > Okay, would it better if we get rid of this variable and have code like
> > below?
> >
> > /* Skip the indexes
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:17, Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:20, Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > Thank you for
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:20, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Thank you for update! I looked again
> > >
> > > (vacuum_indexes_leader)
> > > +
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:20, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > Thank you for update! I looked again
> >
> > (vacuum_indexes_leader)
> > + /* Skip the indexes that can be processed by parallel
> > workers */
> > +
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 12:50, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 20:54, Mahendra
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>
> Hi
> Thank you for update! I looked again
>
> (vacuum_indexes_leader)
> + /* Skip the indexes that can be processed by parallel workers
> */
> + if (!skip_index)
> + continue;
>
> Does the
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 22:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you think of the attached? Sawada-san, kindly verify the
> > > changes and let me know your opinion.
Hello
> I just thought they were concerned
> that the variable name skip_index might be confusing because we skip
> if skip_index is NOT true.
Right.
>> > - bool skip_index = (get_indstats(lps->lvshared, i) == NULL ||
>> > - skip_parallel_vacuum_index(Irel[i], lps->lvshared));
>> > + bool
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:20 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 20:54,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:48 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 20:54, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 19:48, Masahiko Sawada <
masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 20:54, Mahendra Singh Thalor <
mahi6...@gmail.com>
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 9:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 20:54, Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > Thank you for
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 20:54, Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > Thank you for update! I looked again
> >
> > (vacuum_indexes_leader)
> > + /* Skip the indexes that can be processed by parallel
workers */
> > +
Hello
> Yes, we should improve this. I tried to fix this. Attaching a delta
> patch that is fixing both the comments.
Thank you, I have no objections.
I think that status of CF entry is outdated and the most appropriate status for
this patch is "Ready to Commiter". Changed. I also added an
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 15:51, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>
> Hi
> Thank you for update! I looked again
>
> (vacuum_indexes_leader)
> + /* Skip the indexes that can be processed by parallel workers
> */
> + if (!skip_index)
> + continue;
>
> Does the
Hi
Thank you for update! I looked again
(vacuum_indexes_leader)
+ /* Skip the indexes that can be processed by parallel workers */
+ if (!skip_index)
+ continue;
Does the variable name skip_index not confuse here? Maybe rename to something
like
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 19:33, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:41 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 22:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you think of the attached? Sawada-san, kindly verify the
> > > changes and let me know your opinion.
>
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 17:31, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I noticed that parallel vacuum uses min_parallel_index_scan_size GUC to skip
> small indexes but this is not mentioned in documentation for both vacuum
> command and GUC itself.
>
> + /* Determine the number of parallel
Hello
I noticed that parallel vacuum uses min_parallel_index_scan_size GUC to skip
small indexes but this is not mentioned in documentation for both vacuum
command and GUC itself.
+ /* Determine the number of parallel workers to launch */
+ if (lps->lvshared->for_cleanup)
+ {
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 22:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 6:48 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > In other thread "parallel vacuum options/syntax" [1], Amit Kapila asked
> > opinion about syntax for making normal vacuum to parallel. From that
> >
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:15 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:23 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> > IMO there's not much reason for the leader not to participate. For
> > regular queries the leader may be doing useful stuff (essentially
> > running the non-parallel part of the
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:23 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> IMO there's not much reason for the leader not to participate. For
> regular queries the leader may be doing useful stuff (essentially
> running the non-parallel part of the query) but AFAIK for VAUCUM that's
> not the case and the worker is
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:03 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 8:29 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0530,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > >> I think there's another question we need to ask
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 8:29 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 12:39, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > >> I think there's another question we need to ask -
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:37 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:40:39AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >+1. It is already a separate patch and I think we can even discuss
> >more on it in a new thread once the
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >> I think there's another question we need to ask - why to we introduce a
> >> bitmask, instead of using regular
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:06:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> v40-0001-Introduce-IndexAM-fields-for-parallel-vacuum.patch
>>
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:40:39AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:06:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> v40-0003-Add-FAST-option-to-vacuum-command.patch
>>
>>
>> I
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:06:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>
> >> v40-0003-Add-FAST-option-to-vacuum-command.patch
> >>
> >>
> >> I do have a bit of an issue with this part - I'm not
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:53 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:06:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> v40-0001-Introduce-IndexAM-fields-for-parallel-vacuum.patch
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I wonder if
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:06:23PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 11:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 09:17:16PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:44, Amit Kapila
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 09:17:16PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The first patches look good to me. I'm
On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 17:47, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The first patches look good
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The first patches look good to me. I'm reviewing other patches and
> > > will post comments if there
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 at 15:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The first patches look good to me. I'm reviewing other patches and
> > will post comments if there is.
> >
Oops I meant first "two" patches look good to me.
>
> Okay, feel
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:08 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
>
> The first patches look good to me. I'm reviewing other patches and
> will post comments if there is.
>
Okay, feel free to address few comments raised by Mahendra along with
whatever you find.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 19:41, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:13 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached the updated version patch that incorporated the all
> > review comments I go so far.
> >
>
> I have further edited the first two patches posted by you. The
>
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:02 PM Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
> 5. I am not sure that I am right but I can see that we are not consistent
> while ending the single line comments.
>
> I think, if single line comment is started with "upper case letter", then we
> should not put period(dot) at the end
g_indg_On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 16:11, Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:13 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've attached the updated version patch that incorporated the all
> > review comments I go so far.
> >
>
> I have further edited the first two patches posted by you. The
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 16:24, Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 17:17, Prabhat Sahu
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While testing this feature with parallel vacuum on "TEMPORARY TABLE", I got
> > a server crash on PG Head+V36_patch.
> > Changed configuration parameters and Stack
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 17:17, Prabhat Sahu
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While testing this feature with parallel vacuum on "TEMPORARY TABLE", I got a
> server crash on PG Head+V36_patch.
> Changed configuration parameters and Stack trace are as below:
>
> autovacuum = on
> max_worker_processes = 4
>
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:17 PM Prabhat Sahu
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While testing this feature with parallel vacuum on "TEMPORARY TABLE", I
> got a server crash on PG Head+V36_patch.
>
>From the call stack, it is not clear whether it is related to a patch at
all. Have you checked your test with and
Hi,
While testing this feature with parallel vacuum on "TEMPORARY TABLE", I got
a server crash on PG Head+V36_patch.
Changed configuration parameters and Stack trace are as below:
autovacuum = on
max_worker_processes = 4
shared_buffers = 10MB
max_parallel_workers = 8
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 22:48, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:41 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Attached the updated version patch. This version patch incorporates
> > the above comments and the comments from Mahendra. I also fixed one
> > bug around determining the indexes
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:41 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> Attached the updated version patch. This version patch incorporates
> the above comments and the comments from Mahendra. I also fixed one
> bug around determining the indexes that are vacuumed in parallel based
> on their option and size.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:11 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 19:06, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> - /* Cap by the worker we computed at the beginning of parallel lazy vacuum */
> - nworkers = Min(nworkers, lps->pcxt->nworkers);
> + /*
> + * The number of workers required for
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 12:07, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> [please trim extra text before responding]
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:01 PM Mahendra Singh wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 00:30, Mahendra Singh wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.
> > > After v35 patch, vacuum.sql regression test is taking
1 - 100 of 394 matches
Mail list logo
