| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-11-13 04:18:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JNz2NuN2oc3Y+DpSEd2ZV7Z8o=3aZrWfaX-xEuG1FAMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 8:34 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 11:38, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > It might be that we need to do it the way
> > I originally proposed the different values of amparallelvacuumoptions
> > or maybe some variant of it where the default value can clearly say
> > that IndexAm doesn't support a parallel vacuum.
>
> Okay. After more thoughts on your original proposal, what I get
> confused on your proposal is that there are two types of flags that
> enable and disable options. Looking at 2, 3 and 4, it looks like all
> options are disabled by default and setting these flags means to
> enable them. On the other hand looking at 1, it looks like these
> options are enabled by default and setting the flag means to disable
> it. 0 makes sense to me. So how about having 0, 2, 3 and 4?
>
Yeah, 0,2,3 and 4 sounds reasonable to me. Earlier, Dilip also got
confused with option 1.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | iwata.aya@fujitsu.com | 2019-11-13 04:20:11 | RE: libpq debug log |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-11-13 04:16:45 | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |