On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:43 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:55 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > Just a personal suggestion for the parallel related function name. Since > > > Andres > > > wanted a uniform naming pattern. Mabe we can rename the following > > > functions: > > > > > > end|begin_parallel_vacuum => parallel_vacuum_end|begin > > > perform_parallel_index_bulkdel|cleanup => > > > parallel_vacuum_index_bulkdel|cleanup > > > > > > So that all the parallel related functions' name is like > > > parallel_vacuum_xxx. > > > > > > > BTW, do we really need functions > > perform_parallel_index_bulkdel|cleanup? Both do some minimal > > assignments and then call parallel_vacuum_all_indexes() and there is > > just one caller of each. Isn't it better to just do those assignments > > in the caller and directly call parallel_vacuum_all_indexes()? > > The reason why I declare these two functions are: (1) the fields of > ParallelVacuumState are not exposed and (2) bulk-deletion and cleanup > require different arguments (estimated_count is required only by > cleanup). So if we expose the fields of ParallelVacuumState, the > caller can do those assignments and directly call > parallel_vacuum_all_indexes(). But I'm not sure it's good if those > assignments are the caller's responsibility. >
Okay, that makes sense. However, I am still not very comfortable with the function naming suggested by Hou-San, do you have any thoughts on that? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
