Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZt41giDPfO3bW2w1yGawo2J3paB3Ki9YTgya7QaJgxLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> +           /*
> +            * We have already checked the column list in vacuum(...),
> +            * but the columns may have disappeared since then.  If
> +            * this happens, emit a nice warning message and skip the
> +            * undefined column.
> +            */
> I think that this would be reworded. "nice" is cute is this context.
> Why not just saying something like:
> "Do not issue an ERROR if a column is missing but use a WARNING
> instead. At the beginning of the VACUUM run, the code already checked
> for undefined columns and informed about an ERROR, but we want the
> processing to move on for existing columns."

Hmm, I find your (Michael's) suggestion substantially less clear than
the wording to which you are objecting.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but stillimpractical setting