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
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 |