On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:49:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different
> for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are
> bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user
> care? It seems to me that users are just satisfied to know that the
> indexes were scanned; the fact that this was done in a parallel worker
> is not of much interest, so why call attention to that? Therefore, we
> can reduce the message to what's emitted in the normal case.
Indeed. Worth noting also that one can get the same level of
information with %P in log_line_prefix.
> In 0002, I propose to remove the word "concurrently" in an error
> message when an invalid index cannot be reindexed. In fact, the problem
> is generic: we just cannot reindex the index at all, regardless of
> concurrently or not. So we can reduce this message to be identical to
> the one we throw in the non-concurrent case.
No issues from me here.
> Patch 0004 just adds a comment to clarify a message that I found
> confusing when doing the translation.
+1.
--
Michael
