On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:49:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different > for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are > bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user > care? It seems to me that users are just satisfied to know that the > indexes were scanned; the fact that this was done in a parallel worker > is not of much interest, so why call attention to that? Therefore, we > can reduce the message to what's emitted in the normal case.
Indeed. Worth noting also that one can get the same level of information with %P in log_line_prefix. > In 0002, I propose to remove the word "concurrently" in an error > message when an invalid index cannot be reindexed. In fact, the problem > is generic: we just cannot reindex the index at all, regardless of > concurrently or not. So we can reduce this message to be identical to > the one we throw in the non-concurrent case. No issues from me here. > Patch 0004 just adds a comment to clarify a message that I found > confusing when doing the translation. +1. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
