Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code
Date: 2021-05-25 09:29:56
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KJ9sSZ2MFvvKFYnjQeHGQkC2uCBs4Ttv5Rmj2WSpzNQQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 3:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If the patch changes the vacuumdb code as above then isn't it better
> > > to change the vacuumdb docs to reflect the same. See below part of
> > > vacuumdb docs:
> > > -P parallel_degree
> > > --parallel=parallel_degree
> >
> > Changed.
> >
> > > Also, can you please check if your patch works for PG-13 as well
> > > because I think it is better to backpatch it?
> >
> > I'm not sure about backpatching as it is not a critical bug fix. Since
> > the changes are user visible, I think that it's okay to backpatch.
> >
>
> Yes, as it is a user-visible change (though minor) so I thought it
> would be good to backpatch this. Does anyone else have any opinion on
> this?
>

Pushed!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2021-05-25 09:30:55 Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-05-25 09:28:56 Replace run-time error check with assertion