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

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date: 2020-04-15 03:42:37
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+aRCF_Ye6at4C7Kko0UaK0y=Letm6kvYho0osEfnOYmA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:03 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:54:17AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > -VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- disables parallel vacuum option
> > > > +VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- parallel vacuum disabled for temp tables
> > > > WARNING: disabling parallel option of vacuum on "tmp" --- cannot vacuum temporary tables in parallel
> > > > +VACUUM (PARALLEL 0, FULL TRUE) tmp; -- can specify parallel disabled (even though that's implied by FULL)
> > > >
> > > > To fully close the gap in the tests, I would also add a test for
> > > > (PARALLEL 1, FULL false) where FULL directly specified, even if that
> > > > sounds like a nit. That's fine to test even on a temporary table.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, I will do this once we agree on the error message stuff.
> > >
> >
> > I have changed one of the existing tests to test the option suggested
> > by you. Additionally, I have changed the docs as per suggestion from
> > Sawada-san. I haven't changed the error message. Let me know if you
> > have any more comments?
>
> You did:
> |...then the number of workers is determined based on the number of
> |indexes that support parallel vacuum operation on the [-relation,-]{+relation+} and is further
> |limited by <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.
>
> I'd suggest to say instead:
> |...then the number of workers is determined based on the number of
> |indexes ON THE RELATION that support parallel vacuum operation, and is further
> |limited by <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.
>

I have not changed this now but I find your suggestion better than
existing wording. I'll change this before committing the patch unless
there are more comments.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2020-04-15 03:48:36 Re: Properly mark NULL returns in numeric aggregates
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-04-15 03:33:01 Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error