Re: doc: vacuum full, fillfactor, and "extra space"

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: doc: vacuum full, fillfactor, and "extra space"
Date: 2020-03-02 13:40:30
Message-ID: 647d6974-9c52-12f0-0418-055b837401b0@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/30/20 6:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>> Rebased against 40d964ec997f64227bc0ff5e058dc4a5770a70a9
>>
>> I'm not sure that description of parallel vacuum in the middle of
>> non-full vs. full vacuum is actually that good.
>
> I have done like that because parallel vacuum is the default. I mean
> when the user runs vacuum command, it will invoke workers to perform
> index cleanup based on some conditions.
>
>> I think those sentences
>> should be moved to a separate paragraph.
>
> It seems more natural to me to add immediately after vacuum
> explanation, but I might be wrong. After the above explanation, if
> you still think it is better to move into a separate paragraph, I can
> do that.
Peter, do you still think this should be moved into a separate paragraph?

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2020-03-02 13:57:03 Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Previous Message Arseny Sher 2020-03-02 13:37:04 Re: ERROR: subtransaction logged without previous top-level txn record