Re: vacuumdb -f and -j options (was Question / requests.)

2016-10-09 7:54 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> Robert Haas wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Francisco Olarte
> >>>> I don't know, but it seems like the documentation for vacuumdb
> >>>> currently says, more or less, "Hey, if you use -j with -f, it may not
> >>>> work!", which seems unacceptable to me. It should be the job of the
> >>>> person writing the feature to make it work in all cases, not the job
> >>>> of the person using the feature to work around the problem when it
> >>>> doesn't.
> >>>
> >>> The most interesting use case of vacuumdb is lazy vacuuming, I think,
> so
> >>> committing that patch as it was submitted previously was a good step
> >>> forward even if it didn't handle VACUUM FULL 100%.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that it's better to have both modes Just Work in parallel,
> which
> >>> is the point of this subsequent patch. So let's move forward. I
> >>> support Francisco's effort to make -f work with -j. I don't have a
> >>> strong opinion on which of the various proposals presented so far is
> the
> >>> best way to implement it, but let's figure that out and get it done.
> >>>
> >>
> >> After reading Francisco's proposal [1], I don't think it is directly
> >> trying to make -f and -j work together. He is proposing to make it
> >> work by providing some new options. As you are wondering upthread, I
> >> think it seems reasonable to disallow -f with parallel vacuuming if no
> >> tables are specified.
> >
> > Instead of restricting completely things, I'd like to think that being
> > able to make both of them work together is the right move at the end.
> >
>
> Sure, if somebody can come up with a patch which can safely avoid the
> deadlock when both -f and -j options are used, then we should go that
> way. Otherwise we can block those options to be used together rather
> than just have a note in docs.
>

+1

Pavel

>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>