On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 05:55:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:23 PM Masahiko Sawada > <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I am not very sure about this. I don't think the current text is wrong > especially when you see the value we can specify there is described > as: "Specifies a non-negative integer value passed to the selected > option.". However, we can consider changing it if others also think > the proposed text or something like that is better than current text.
FWIW, the current formulation in the docs looked fine to me. > Yeah, something on these lines would be a good idea. Note that, we are > already planning to slightly change this particular sentence in > another patch [1]. > > [1] - > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200322021801.GB2563%40telsasoft.com Makes sense. I have two comments. ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED), - errmsg("cannot specify both FULL and PARALLEL options"))); + errmsg("VACUUM FULL cannot be performed in parallel"))); Better to avoid a full sentence here [1]? This should be a "cannot do foo" errror. -VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- disables parallel vacuum option +VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- parallel vacuum disabled for temp tables WARNING: disabling parallel option of vacuum on "tmp" --- cannot vacuum temporary tables in parallel +VACUUM (PARALLEL 0, FULL TRUE) tmp; -- can specify parallel disabled (even though that's implied by FULL) To fully close the gap in the tests, I would also add a test for (PARALLEL 1, FULL false) where FULL directly specified, even if that sounds like a nit. That's fine to test even on a temporary table. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/error-style-guide.html -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
