On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Robert Haas wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Francisco Olarte >>>> I don't know, but it seems like the documentation for vacuumdb >>>> currently says, more or less, "Hey, if you use -j with -f, it may not >>>> work!", which seems unacceptable to me. It should be the job of the >>>> person writing the feature to make it work in all cases, not the job >>>> of the person using the feature to work around the problem when it >>>> doesn't. >>> >>> The most interesting use case of vacuumdb is lazy vacuuming, I think, so >>> committing that patch as it was submitted previously was a good step >>> forward even if it didn't handle VACUUM FULL 100%. >>> >>> I agree that it's better to have both modes Just Work in parallel, which >>> is the point of this subsequent patch. So let's move forward. I >>> support Francisco's effort to make -f work with -j. I don't have a >>> strong opinion on which of the various proposals presented so far is the >>> best way to implement it, but let's figure that out and get it done. >>> >> >> After reading Francisco's proposal [1], I don't think it is directly >> trying to make -f and -j work together. He is proposing to make it >> work by providing some new options. As you are wondering upthread, I >> think it seems reasonable to disallow -f with parallel vacuuming if no >> tables are specified. > > Instead of restricting completely things, I'd like to think that being > able to make both of them work together is the right move at the end. >
Sure, if somebody can come up with a patch which can safely avoid the deadlock when both -f and -j options are used, then we should go that way. Otherwise we can block those options to be used together rather than just have a note in docs.
