Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Date
Msg-id 20200410133532.GA2228@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:34:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > > specifying options whereas we can do something like "VACUUM (FULL
> > > false) tbl" to disable FULL option. I might be misunderstanding the
> > > meaning of "specify" though.
> >
> > You have it right.
> >
> > We should fix the behavior, but change the error message for consistency with
> > that change, like so.
> >
> 
> Okay, but I think the error message suggested by Robert "ERROR: VACUUM
> FULL cannot be performed in parallel" sounds better than what you have
> proposed.  What do you think?

No problem.  I think I was trying to make my text similar to that from
14a4f6f37.

I realized that I didn't sq!uash my last patch, so it didn't include the
functional change (which is maybe what Robert was referring to).

-- 
Justin

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeremy Morton
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: doc review for parallel vacuum