On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 14:47, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dilip Kumar <
dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dilip Kumar <
dilipbalaut@gmail.com> 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 performed by the worker
> > and the total delay (heap + index) is almost the same as the
> > non-parallel operation.
> >
>
> Thanks for doing this test again. In the attached patch, I have
> addressed all the comments and modified a few comments.
>
Hi,
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 parallel context is initialized with fewer workers
+ *
then the number of indexes that need a separate worker in the current
+ * phase, so we need to consider it. See compute_parallel_vacuum_workers.
+ */
This comment is confusing me. I think, "then" should be replaced with "than".
--
Thanks and Regards
Mahendra Singh Thalor
EnterpriseDB:
http://www.enterprisedb.com