On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:46 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> 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 the relation size. Since we instead
> populate new table for parallel vacuum testing the regression test for
> vacuum would take a longer time.
>
Fair enough and I think it is good in a way that it won't change the
coverage of existing vacuum code. I have fixed all the issues
reported by Mahendra and have fixed a few other cosmetic things in the
attached patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com