| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Date: | 2020-09-30 13:29:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Km5VVmdPpdMNSA414uRFJKVw8r_A7ORpL-0pHnYfGpLw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:13 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-09-26 07:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This is exactly my feeling too. But how about changing documentation a
> > bit as proposed above [1] to make it precise.
> >
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LQWXS_4RwLo%2BWT7jusGnBkUvXO73xQOCsydWLYBpLBEg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Yes, making the documentation more precise would be good. Right now,
> it's a bit confusing and unclear (using phrases like "based on").
> Someone who wants to the the VACUUM PARALLEL option presumably wants
> precise control, so specifying the exact rules would be desirable.
>
I have changed the docs to make this clear. Let me know what you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Change-the-docs-for-PARALLEL-option-of-Vacuum.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesse Zhang | 2020-09-30 15:20:45 | Re: Residual cpluspluscheck issues |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-09-30 12:53:41 | Re: [PATCH] Add section headings to index types doc |