Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date: 2020-04-09 07:01:55
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LYqw_MN9=MHcxF6ayvmN2NdaxaqJ5e+f2GobBpfC1AjA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:54 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:52, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > We can do what Mahendra
> > is saying but that will unnecessarily block some syntax and we might
> > need to introduce an extra variable to detect that in code.
>
> ISTM we have been using the expression "specifying the option" in log
> messages when a user wrote the option in the command. But now that
> VACUUM command options can have a true/false it doesn't make sense to
> say like "if the option is specified we cannot do that". So maybe
> "cannot turn on FULL and PARALLEL options" or something would be
> better, I think.
>

Sure, we can change that, but isn't the existing example of similar
message "cannot specify both PARSER and COPY options" occurs when
both the options have valid values? If so, we can use a similar
principle here, no?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-04-09 07:03:57 Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-04-09 06:44:26 Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error