2016-10-09 7:54 GMT+02:00 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera > >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> Robert Haas wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Francisco Olarte > >>>> I don't know, but it seems like the documentation for vacuumdb > >>>> currently says, more or less, "Hey, if you use -j with -f, it may not > >>>> work!", which seems unacceptable to me. It should be the job of the > >>>> person writing the feature to make it work in all cases, not the job > >>>> of the person using the feature to work around the problem when it > >>>> doesn't. > >>> > >>> The most interesting use case of vacuumdb is lazy vacuuming, I think, > so > >>> committing that patch as it was submitted previously was a good step > >>> forward even if it didn't handle VACUUM FULL 100%. > >>> > >>> I agree that it's better to have both modes Just Work in parallel, > which > >>> is the point of this subsequent patch. So let's move forward. I > >>> support Francisco's effort to make -f work with -j. I don't have a > >>> strong opinion on which of the various proposals presented so far is > the > >>> best way to implement it, but let's figure that out and get it done. > >>> > >> > >> After reading Francisco's proposal [1], I don't think it is directly > >> trying to make -f and -j work together. He is proposing to make it > >> work by providing some new options. As you are wondering upthread, I > >> think it seems reasonable to disallow -f with parallel vacuuming if no > >> tables are specified. > > > > Instead of restricting completely things, I'd like to think that being > > able to make both of them work together is the right move at the end. > > > > Sure, if somebody can come up with a patch which can safely avoid the > deadlock when both -f and -j options are used, then we should go that > way. Otherwise we can block those options to be used together rather > than just have a note in docs. >
+1 Pavel > > -- > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
