| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM (PARALLEL) option processing not using DefElem the way it was intended |
| Date: | 2025-10-08 22:08:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqt=BM-JQi1R1ynPbEL8YZuVtcz8aJ6qGeCCHb8siV0Ow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 05:57, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2025-Oct-08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > ereport(ERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> > errmsg("BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT option must be 0 or between %d kB
> > and %d kB",
> > MIN_BAS_VAC_RING_SIZE_KB, MAX_BAS_VAC_RING_SIZE_KB),
> > hintmsg ? errhint("%s", _(hintmsg)) : 0));
> >
> > Should we also change this for consistency with how we handle other
> > VACUUM options?
>
> I would appreciate that, and also a change there from errhint() to
> errhint_internal.
Ok, I've adjusted that in the attached.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| adjust_vacuum_parallel_option_handling_code_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-10-08 22:18:00 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-08 21:39:48 | Re: [PATCH] Proposal: Allow reads to proceed during FK/trigger drops by reducing relation-level lock from AccessExclusive to ShareRowExclusive |