Hi > I think I got your point. Your proposal is that it's more efficient if > we make the leader process vacuum the index that can be processed only > the leader process (i.e. indexes not supporting parallel index vacuum) > while workers are processing indexes supporting parallel index vacuum, > right? That way, we can process indexes in parallel as much as > possible.
Right > So maybe we can call vacuum_or_cleanup_skipped_indexes first > and then call vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker. But I'm not sure that > there are parallel-safe remaining indexes after the leader finished > vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker, as described on your proposal. I meant that after processing missing indexes (not supporting parallel index vacuum), the leader can start processing indexes that support the parallel index vacuum, along with parallel workers. Exactly call vacuum_or_cleanup_skipped_indexes after start parallel workers but before vacuum_or_cleanup_indexes_worker or something with similar effect. If we have 0 missed indexes - parallel vacuum will run as in current implementation, with leader participation. Sorry for my unclear english... regards, Sergei
