On 2022-04-26 Tu 00:46, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:36:02AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> The refactoring logic to build the queries is clear to follow. I have
>> a few comments about the shape of the patch, though.
> Thanks for taking a look!
>
>> case 'a':
>> - alldb = true;
>> + check_objfilter(OBJFILTER_ALL_DBS);
>> break;
>> The cross-option checks are usually done after all the options
>> switches are check. Why does this need to be different? It does not
>> strike me as a huge problem to do one filter check at the end.
> Makes sense. I fixed this in v13.
>
>> +void
>> +check_objfilter(VacObjFilter curr_option)
>> +{
>> + objfilter |= curr_option;
>> +
>> + if ((objfilter & OBJFILTER_ALL_DBS) &&
>> + (objfilter & OBJFILTER_DATABASE))
>> + pg_fatal("cannot vacuum all databases and a specific one at the same
>> time");
>> The addition of more OBJFILTER_* (unlikely going to happen, but who
>> knows) would make it hard to know which option should not interact
>> with each other. Wouldn't it be better to use a kind of compatibility
>> table for that? As one OBJFILTER_* matches with one option, you could
>> simplify the number of strings in need of translation by switching to
>> an error message like "cannot use options %s and %s together", or
>> something like that?
> I think this might actually make things more complicated. In addition to
> the compatibility table, we'd need to define the strings to use in the
> error message somewhere. I can give this a try if you feel strongly about
> it.
>
>> +$node->command_fails(
>> + [ 'vacuumdb', '-a', '-d', 'postgres' ],
>> + 'cannot use options -a and -d at the same time');
>> This set of tests had better use command_fails_like() to make sure
>> that the correct error patterns from check_objfilter() show up?
> Yes. I did this in v13.
committed.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
