Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 6:37 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:38 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was going through the parallel vacuum docs and code. I found below
> > > things, please someone clarify:
> > >
> > > 1) I see that  a term "parallel degree" is used in the docs, code
> > > comments, error messages "parallel vacuum degree must be a
> > > non-negative integer", "parallel vacuum degree must be between 0 and
> > > %d". Is there any specific reason to use the term "parallel degree"?
> > > In the docs and code comments we generally use "parallel workers".
> > >
> >
> > The parallel degree term is used here to indicate that we compute how
> > much parallelism we can achieve based on the indexes.
>
> Yeah, I get it. Even if users don't specify a parallel option there
> are chances that parallelism is picked. So the parallel degree is the
> final number of workers that are chosen by the server for vacuuming
> indexes. And, I think that parallel degree is something internal to
> the server, and it's better we replace it in the vacuumdb.sgml, change
> PARALLEL_DEGREE to PARALLEL_WORKERS in vacuumdb.c and change the error
> message "parallel vacuum degree must be a non-negative integer" to
> "parallel workers for vacuum must be greater than or equal to zero".
>
> Thoughts?
>
> > > 2) The error messages "parallel vacuum degree must be between 0 and
> > > %d" and "parallel option requires a value between 0 and %d" look
> > > inconsistent.
> > >
> >
> > I think we can make them consistent.
>
> How about only one message "parallel option requires a value between 0
> and %d" for both cases below? IMO they essentially mean the same
> thing.
>

I am fine with changing what you are proposing in the above two
points. Sawada-San, any thoughts?

>
> > > 6) I think, instead of saying "using integer background workers", we
> > > can just say "using specified or lesser number of background workers".
> > > From the docs: Perform index vacuum and index cleanup phases of VACUUM
> > > in parallel using integer background workers
> > > We can say "workers specified will be used during execution"
> > > From the docs: workers specified in integer will be used during execution
> > >
> > The docs here refer to "PARALLEL integer" specified in specs, so not
> > sure if the proposed text is better.
>
> IMO, "using the number of background workers specified with the
> option" looks better than "using integer background workers".
> Thoughts?
>

I am not too sure about this point. I guess we can leave it for now.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.