On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Attached the updated patches. I scaled back the scope of this patch.
> The patch now includes only feature (a), that is it execute both index
> vacuum and cleanup index in parallel. It also doesn't include
> autovacuum support for now.
>
> The PARALLEL option works alomst same as before patch. In VACUUM
> command, we can specify 'PARALLEL n' option where n is the number of
> parallel workers to request. If the n is omitted the number of
> parallel worekrs would be # of indexes -1.
>
I think for now this is okay, but I guess in furture when we make
heapscans also parallel or maybe allow more than one worker per-index
vacuum, then this won't hold good. So, I am not sure if below text in
docs is most appropriate.
+ <term><literal>PARALLEL <replaceable
class="parameter">N</replaceable></literal></term>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>
+ Execute index vacuum and cleanup index in parallel with
+ <replaceable class="parameter">N</replaceable> background
workers. If the parallel
+ degree <replaceable class="parameter">N</replaceable> is omitted,
+ <command>VACUUM</command> requests the number of indexes - 1
processes, which is the
+ maximum number of parallel vacuum workers since individual
indexes is processed by
+ one process. The actual number of parallel vacuum workers may
be less due to the
+ setting of <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.
+ This option can not use with <literal>FULL</literal> option.
It might be better to use some generic language in docs, something
like "If the parallel degree N is omitted, then vacuum decides the
number of workers based on number of indexes on the relation which is
further limited by max-parallel-workers-maintenance". I think you
also need to mention in some way that you consider storage option
parallel_workers.
Few assorted comments:
1.
+lazy_begin_parallel_vacuum_index(LVState *lvstate, bool for_cleanup)
{
..
+
+ LaunchParallelWorkers(lvstate->pcxt);
+
+ /*
+ * if no workers launched, we vacuum all indexes by the leader process
+ * alone. Since there is hope that we can launch workers in the next
+ * execution time we don't want to end the parallel mode yet.
+ */
+ if (lvstate->pcxt->nworkers_launched == 0)
+ return;
It is quite possible that the workers are not launched because we fail
to allocate memory, basically when pcxt->nworkers is zero. I think in
such cases there is no use for being in parallel mode. You can even
detect that before calling lazy_begin_parallel_vacuum_index.
2.
static void
+lazy_vacuum_all_indexes_for_leader(LVState *lvstate,
IndexBulkDeleteResult **stats,
+ LVTidMap *dead_tuples, bool do_parallel,
+ bool for_cleanup)
{
..
+ if (do_parallel)
+ lazy_begin_parallel_vacuum_index(lvstate, for_cleanup);
+
+ for (;;)
+ {
+ IndexBulkDeleteResult *r = NULL;
+
+ /*
+ * Get the next index number to vacuum and set index statistics. In parallel
+ * lazy vacuum, index bulk-deletion results are stored in the shared memory
+ * segment. If it's already updated we use it rather than setting it to NULL.
+ * In single vacuum, we can always use an element of the 'stats'.
+ */
+ if (do_parallel)
+ {
+ idx = pg_atomic_fetch_add_u32(&(lvshared->nprocessed), 1);
+
+ if (lvshared->indstats[idx].updated)
+ r = &(lvshared->indstats[idx].stats);
+ }
It is quite possible that we are not able to launch any workers in
lazy_begin_parallel_vacuum_index, in such cases, we should not use
parallel mode path, basically as written we can't rely on
'do_parallel' flag.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
