Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date: 2020-04-08 15:57:08
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYkFYRnmTLgPLPm664UdQFBcJTcDZXzBP6dG0zTniYEWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
<mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think, Tushar point is that either we should allow both
> vacuum(parallel 0, full 1) and vacuum(parallel 1, full 0) or in the
> both cases, we should through error.

Oh, yeah, good point. Somebody must not've been careful enough with
the options-checking code.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-04-08 15:58:27 Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2020-04-08 15:57:03 Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)