| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code |
| Date: | 2021-05-21 10:03:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KG32TZu78TyYymazU9sk-tEkQLe8gkuidFsRho6CgzaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > If the patch changes the vacuumdb code as above then isn't it better
> > to change the vacuumdb docs to reflect the same. See below part of
> > vacuumdb docs:
> > -P parallel_degree
> > --parallel=parallel_degree
>
> Changed.
>
> > Also, can you please check if your patch works for PG-13 as well
> > because I think it is better to backpatch it?
>
> I'm not sure about backpatching as it is not a critical bug fix. Since
> the changes are user visible, I think that it's okay to backpatch.
>
Yes, as it is a user-visible change (though minor) so I thought it
would be good to backpatch this. Does anyone else have any opinion on
this?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-05-21 10:09:58 | Re: Logical Replication - behavior of TRUNCATE ... CASCADE |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-05-21 09:37:22 | Re: seawasp failing, maybe in glibc allocator |