On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:51 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Agreed. I've attached the updated patch. > > > > Thank you for testing, Dilip! > > Thanks! One hunk is failing on the latest head. And, I have rebased > the patch for my testing so posting the same. I have done some more > testing to test multi-pass vacuum. >
The patch looks good to me. I have done a few minor modifications (a) moved the declaration of variable closer to where it is used, (b) changed a comment, (c) ran pgindent. I have also done some additional testing with more number of indexes and found that vacuum and parallel vacuum used the same number of total_read_blks and that is what is expected here. Let me know what you think of the attached? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
bufferusage_vacuum_v6.patch
Description: Binary data
