Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode
Date: 2023-04-18 05:46:53
Message-ID: CAApHDvqCMihULF5bWomSG56d=H9+LA4M8Cp1QKJAWghoHUsMhA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 09:21, Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Are we still thinking that reordering the VACUUM (and ANALYZE) options
> makes sense. And, if so, should it be alphabetical within parameter
> category? That is, all actual parameters (e.g. FULL and FREEZE) are
> alphabetically organized first followed by all parameter types (e.g.
> boolean and size) alphabetically listed?

I've opened a thread for that [1].

David

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvo1eWbt5PVpk0G=yCbBNgLU7KaRP6dCBHpNbFaBjyGyQA@mail.gmail.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-04-18 06:53:17 Re: Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc?
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-04-18 05:44:39 Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc?