On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:39 PM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 18:26, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, maybe something like amparallelvacuumoptions. The options can be: > > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL 0 # vacuum (neither bulkdelete nor > > > vacuumcleanup) can't be performed in parallel > > > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 1 # vacuumcleanup cannot be > > > performed in parallel (hash index will set this flag) > > > > Maybe we don't want this option? because if 3 or 4 is not set then we > > will not do the cleanup in parallel right? > >
Yeah, but it is better to be explicit about this. > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_BULKDEL 2 # bulkdelete can be done in > > > parallel (Indexes nbtree, hash, gin, gist, spgist, bloom will set this > > > flag) > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP 3 # vacuumcleanup can be done in > > > parallel if bulkdelete is not performed (Indexes nbtree, brin, hash, > > > gin, gist, spgist, bloom will set this flag) > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 4 # vacuumcleanup can be done in > > > parallel even if bulkdelete is already performed (Indexes gin, brin, > > > and bloom will set this flag) > > > > > > Does something like this make sense? > > 3 and 4 confused me because 4 also looks conditional. How about having > two flags instead: one for doing parallel cleanup when not performed > yet (VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP) and another one for doing > always parallel cleanup (VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP)? > Hmm, this is exactly what I intend to say with 3 and 4. I am not sure what makes you think 4 is conditional. > That way, we > can have flags as follows and index AM chooses two flags, one from the > first two flags for bulk deletion and another from next three flags > for cleanup. > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_NO_BULKDEL 1 << 0 > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_BULKDEL 1 << 1 > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_NO_CLEANUP 1 << 2 > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP 1 << 3 > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 1 << 4 > This also looks reasonable, but if there is an index that doesn't want to support a parallel vacuum, it needs to set multiple flags. > > Yeah, something like that seems better to me. > > > > > If we all agree on this, then I > > > think we can summarize the part of the discussion related to this API > > > and get feedback from a broader audience. > > > > Make sense. > > +1 > Okay, then I will write a separate email for this topic. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
