On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:03 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> 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"/>.
>
I have not changed this now but I find your suggestion better than
existing wording. I'll change this before committing the patch unless
there are more comments.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
