Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers
Date
Msg-id 25530a0c-1b6d-d6ed-1386-38a8a08bfd68@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amul Sul
Date:
Subject: Re: Disable WAL logging to speed up data loading
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Add session statistics to pg_stat_database