| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(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 05:04:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Ku4X-RYcT+h=ngE8Yt6fMCD2rXpAvG0rh=j=PS+K0zmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-04-10 05:07:08 | Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-04-10 04:30:13 | Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btree index items |