Re: vacuumlo patch

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Tim <elatllat(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks Josh,
> I like the ability to bail out on PQTRANS_INERROR, and I think it's a small
> enough fix to be appropriate to include in this patch.
> I did consider it before but did not implement it because I am still new to
> pgsql-hackers and did not know how off-the-cuff.
> So thanks for the big improvement.

I've committed this patch with some changes, mostly cosmetic. One
not-quite-so-cosmetic change is that I removed the suggestion that -l
should be used with a limit one lower than whatever provoked the
previous failure. That might be true on a completely idle system, but
is an oversimplification in real life. Maybe some kind of hint is
appropriate here, but I think if we're going to have one it ought to
be more generically worded. I also updated the failure error message
to avoid saying that we "failed to remove NNN objects". Instead, it
now says how many objects it wanted to remove and how far it had
gotten when it failed, which I think is more useful.

Please feel free to propose further patches if you don't like what
I've done here, or want to further build on it or fine-tune...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company