Re: VACUUM (PARALLEL) option processing not using DefElem the way it was intended

From: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM (PARALLEL) option processing not using DefElem the way it was intended
Date: 2025-10-08 11:36:14
Message-ID: 202510081125.ftqalzxsuzi6@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2025-Oct-08, David Rowley wrote:

> I was just looking at the VACUUM option processing and I saw that the
> code to process the PARALLEL option doesn't make use of the code in
> defGetInt32() that's meant to handle empty and non-integer parameters.
> ExecVacuum() has code to handle an empty PARALLEL parameters, but not
> non-integer ones. That goes through to defGetInt32().

Yeah, that change makes sense to me. With an eye towards not forcing
the translators to understand the message context or forced to translate
the word "parallel", I would suggest to take the option name out of the
sentence, maybe something like

value for VACUUM option \"%s\" must be between 0 and %d

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karina Litskevich 2025-10-08 11:38:20 doc: Improve description of io_combine_limit and io_max_combine_limit GUCs
Previous Message David Rowley 2025-10-08 11:14:39 Re: Eager aggregation, take 3