On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> > For combination of VACUUM command options, although parallel vacuum is
> > enabled by default and VACUUM FULL doesn't support it yet, 'VACUUM
> > (FULL)' would work. On the other hand 'VACUUM (FULL, PARALLEL)' and
> > 'VACUUM(FULL, PARALLE
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 15:31, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:31 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 15:27, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I just felt it's not intuitive that specifying parallel degree to 0
> > > means to disable parallel vacuum. But
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:31 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 15:27, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I just felt it's not intuitive that specifying parallel degree to 0
> > means to disable parallel vacuum. But since majority of hackers seem
> > to agree with this syntax I'm n
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 15:27, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 23:28, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:38 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 22:39, Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So if we think we need an option
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 23:28, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:38 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 22:39, Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So if we think we need an option to determine vacuum parallel degree, we
> > > should have an option to disa
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:38 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 22:39, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So if we think we need an option to determine vacuum parallel degree, we
> > should have an option to disable parallelism too. I don't care much if
> > it's called DISABLE_PAR
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 22:39, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 09:17:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > If we want to have a vacuum option to determine parallel degree, we
> >> > should probably have a va
On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 09:17:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
...
> If we want to have a vacuum option to determine parallel degree, we
> should probably have a vacuum option to disable parallelism using just a
> vacuum option. I don't thin
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:40 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 08:54:15AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM Amit Kapila
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I am starting a new thre
On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 03:56:35PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
...
>If parallel vacuum is enabled by default, I would prefer (b) but I
>don't think it's a good idea to accept 0 as parallel degree. If we want
>to disable parallel vacuum we should max_parallel_maintenance_workers
>to 0 instead.
>
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:40 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 08:54:15AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM Amit Kapila
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel
> >> vacuum in the hope to ge
On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 08:54:15AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
Hi,
I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel
vacuum in the hope to get feedback from more people. There are
mainly two points for which we need some f
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel vacuum in
> the hope to get feedback from more people. There are mainly two points for
> which we need some feedback.
>
> 1. Tomas Vondra has pointed out on the main
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 08:51, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel vacuum
> > in the hope to get feedback from more people. There are mainly two points
> > for which we ne
Le ven. 3 janv. 2020 à 09:06, Amit Kapila a
écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:09 PM Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
> >
> > Le jeu. 2 janv. 2020 à 13:09, Amit Kapila a
> écrit :
> >>
> >> If parallel vacuum is *not* enabled by default, then I think the
> current way to enable is fine which is as fo
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:09 PM Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 2 janv. 2020 à 13:09, Amit Kapila a écrit :
>>
>> If parallel vacuum is *not* enabled by default, then I think the current way
>> to enable is fine which is as follows:
>> Vacuum (Parallel 2) ;
>>
>> Here, if the user doesn't sp
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:50 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > If parallel vacuum is *not* enabled by default, then I think the current
> > way to enable is fine which is as follows:
> > Vacuum (Parallel 2) ;
> >
> > Here, if the user doesn't spec
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:39 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel vacuum in
> the hope to get feedback from more people. There are mainly two points for
> which we need some feedback.
>
> 1. Tomas Vondra has pointed out on the main
Le jeu. 2 janv. 2020 à 13:09, Amit Kapila a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel vacuum
> in the hope to get feedback from more people. There are mainly two points
> for which we need some feedback.
>
> 1. Tomas Vondra has pointed out on the main
Hi,
I am starting a new thread for some of the decisions for a parallel vacuum
in the hope to get feedback from more people. There are mainly two points
for which we need some feedback.
1. Tomas Vondra has pointed out on the main thread [1] that by default the
parallel vacuum should be enabled s
20 matches
Mail list logo
