On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM Andrey Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > Hi! > > > 18 окт. 2019 г., в 13:21, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> I think we can do it in general as adding some check for parallel > >> vacuum there will look bit hackish. > > I agree with that point. > > It is not clear if we get enough > >> benefit by keeping it for cleanup phase of the index as discussed in > >> emails above. Heikki, others, let us know if you don't agree here. > > > > I have prepared a first version of the patch. Currently, I am > > performing an empty page deletion for all the cases. > > I've took a look into the patch, and cannot understand one simple thing... > We should not call gistvacuum_delete_empty_pages() for same gist_stats twice. > Another way once the function is called we should somehow update or zero > empty_leaf_set. > Does this invariant hold in your patch? > Thanks for looking into the patch. With this patch now GistBulkDeleteResult is local to single gistbulkdelete call or gistvacuumcleanup. So now we are not sharing GistBulkDeleteResult, across the calls so I am not sure how it will be called twice for the same gist_stats? I might be missing something here?
-- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
