| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel vacuum options/syntax |
| Date: | 2020-01-08 13:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JgtYqRWYa2oNtvd2XQbC_MaWKR5Q9-6s41Q0wnHX6-rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > For combination of VACUUM command options, although parallel vacuum is
> > enabled by default and VACUUM FULL doesn't support it yet, 'VACUUM
> > (FULL)' would work. On the other hand 'VACUUM (FULL, PARALLEL)' and
> > 'VACUUM(FULL, PARALLEL 1)' would not work with error. And I think it
> > is better if 'VACUUM (FULL, PARALLEL 0)' also work but I'd like to
> > hear opinions.
> >
On again thinking about whether we should allow VACUUM (FULL, PARALLEL
0) case, I am not sure, so, for now, the patch [1] is throwing error
for that case, but we can modify it if we want.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-08 13:27:46 | Re: pgbench - use pg logging capabilities |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-08 13:17:04 | Re: sidewinder has one failure |