Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers
Date: 2020-09-29 09:43:13
Message-ID: 25530a0c-1b6d-d6ed-1386-38a8a08bfd68@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-09-26 07:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This is exactly my feeling too. But how about changing documentation a
> bit as proposed above [1] to make it precise.
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LQWXS_4RwLo%2BWT7jusGnBkUvXO73xQOCsydWLYBpLBEg%40mail.gmail.com

Yes, making the documentation more precise would be good. Right now,
it's a bit confusing and unclear (using phrases like "based on").
Someone who wants to the the VACUUM PARALLEL option presumably wants
precise control, so specifying the exact rules would be desirable.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2020-09-29 09:44:13 Re: Add session statistics to pg_stat_database
Previous Message Amul Sul 2020-09-29 09:40:24 Re: Disable WAL logging to speed up data loading