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

From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date: 2020-04-10 05:13:12
Message-ID: CA+fd4k5-Y8ed3ui1fT1N0Xd7aN4JnSd45=w3=v5Rs4z7wZDj6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:04, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > > specifying options whereas we can do something like "VACUUM (FULL
> > > false) tbl" to disable FULL option. I might be misunderstanding the
> > > meaning of "specify" though.
> >
> > You have it right.
> >
> > We should fix the behavior, but change the error message for consistency with
> > that change, like so.
> >
>
> Okay, but I think the error message suggested by Robert "ERROR: VACUUM
> FULL cannot be performed in parallel" sounds better than what you have
> proposed. What do you think?

I totally agree.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-04-10 06:16:46 Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2020-04-10 05:11:48 Re: SyncRepLock acquired exclusively in default configuration