| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |
| Date: | 2017-08-18 18:48:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZt41giDPfO3bW2w1yGawo2J3paB3Ki9YTgya7QaJgxLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> + /*
> + * We have already checked the column list in vacuum(...),
> + * but the columns may have disappeared since then. If
> + * this happens, emit a nice warning message and skip the
> + * undefined column.
> + */
> I think that this would be reworded. "nice" is cute is this context.
> Why not just saying something like:
> "Do not issue an ERROR if a column is missing but use a WARNING
> instead. At the beginning of the VACUUM run, the code already checked
> for undefined columns and informed about an ERROR, but we want the
> processing to move on for existing columns."
Hmm, I find your (Michael's) suggestion substantially less clear than
the wording to which you are objecting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-18 18:51:09 | Re: recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-18 18:45:28 | Re: Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior |