On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:54:17AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > -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.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, I will do this once we agree on the error message stuff.
> >
>
> I have changed one of the existing tests to test the option suggested
> by you. Additionally, I have changed the docs as per suggestion from
> Sawada-san. I haven't changed the error message. Let me know if you
> have any more comments?
You did:
|...then the number of workers is determined based on the number of
|indexes that support parallel vacuum operation on the
[-relation,-]{+relation+} and is further
|limited by <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.
I'd suggest to say instead:
|...then the number of workers is determined based on the number of
|indexes ON THE RELATION that support parallel vacuum operation, and is further
|limited by <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.
--
Justin
