Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date: 2020-04-09 07:20:13
Message-ID: 20200409072013.GS1606@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:33:57PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We can add more tests to validate the syntax, but my worry was to not
> increase test timing by doing (parallel) vacuum. So maybe we can do
> such syntax validation on empty tables or you have any better idea?

Using empty tables for positive tests is the least expensive option.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2020-04-09 07:28:15 Re: adding partitioned tables to publications
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-04-09 07:14:01 Re: adding partitioned tables to publications