| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: vacuum full, fillfactor, and "extra space" |
| Date: | 2020-01-30 11:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+TiNj8kBs=Bh8AZS=WeCpnwgwVL-ry_0n6O9k+iarJ4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Rebased against 40d964ec997f64227bc0ff5e058dc4a5770a70a9
>
> I'm not sure that description of parallel vacuum in the middle of
> non-full vs. full vacuum is actually that good.
>
I have done like that because parallel vacuum is the default. I mean
when the user runs vacuum command, it will invoke workers to perform
index cleanup based on some conditions.
> I think those sentences
> should be moved to a separate paragraph.
>
It seems more natural to me to add immediately after vacuum
explanation, but I might be wrong. After the above explanation, if
you still think it is better to move into a separate paragraph, I can
do that.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-01-30 12:39:52 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-01-30 11:36:17 | ccache is required by postgresql12-devel RPM |