Re: vacuumdb -f and -j options (was Question / requests.)

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Francisco Olarte
<folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> After reading Francisco's proposal [1], I don't think it is directly
>>> trying to make -f and -j work together. He is proposing to make it
>>> work by providing some new options. As you are wondering upthread, I
>>> think it seems reasonable to disallow -f with parallel vacuuming if no
>>> tables are specified.
>
> For me -f & -j is not perfect, but better than not having it. It can
> deadlock when given certain sets of catalog tables, either by making
> it go for the full db or by a perverse set of -t options. But any DBA
> needing them together should, IMO, have resources to write ( or have
> someone else write for him ) a 20-liner wrapping and feeding them via
> -t. After all, not every tool/option is for everyone, and everything
> has it prerequisites.
>

Okay, but I think that doesn't mean it should deadlock when used by
somewhat naive user. I am not sure every user who wants to use -f and
-j is smart enough to write a script as you are suggesting. I think
if more people see your proposal as meaningful and want to leave
current usage of -f and -j as it is, then probably, we should issue a
warning indicating such a risk.

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