On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:12 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:03 AM Justin Pryzby 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
> >
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:12 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:03 AM Justin Pryzby 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
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:03 AM Justin Pryzby 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 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > -VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp;
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:54:17AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > -VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- disables parallel vacuum option
> > > +VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; --
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
>
> > -VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- disables parallel vacuum option
> > +VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- parallel vacuum disabled for temp tables
> > WARNING: disabling parallel option
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> Makes sense. I have two comments.
>
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
> - errmsg("cannot specify both FULL and PARALLEL options")));
> + errmsg("VACUUM
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 05:55:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:23 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> I am not very sure about this. I don't think the current text is wrong
> especially when you see the value we can specify there is described
> as: "Specifies a non-negative
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:23 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 18:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:05 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No problem. I think I was trying to make my text similar to that from
> > > 14a4f6f37.
> > >
> > > I
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 18:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:05 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> >
> > No problem. I think I was trying to make my text similar to that from
> > 14a4f6f37.
> >
> > I realized that I didn't sq!uash my last patch, so it didn't include the
> >
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:05 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
>
> No problem. I think I was trying to make my text similar to that from
> 14a4f6f37.
>
> I realized that I didn't sq!uash my last patch, so it didn't include the
> functional change (which is maybe what Robert was referring to).
>
I think
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:34:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > > specifying options whereas we can
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 14:04, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > > specifying options whereas we can do
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:31 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > I think the behavior is correct, but the error message
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > specifying options whereas we can do something like "VACUUM (FULL
> > false) tbl" to disable FULL
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > I think the behavior is correct, but the error message could be improved,
> > > like:
> > > |ERROR: cannot specify
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> specifying options whereas we can do something like "VACUUM (FULL
> false) tbl" to disable FULL option. I might be misunderstanding the
> meaning of "specify"
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 16:02, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:54 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > We can do what Mahendra
> > > is saying but that will unnecessarily block some syntax and we might
> > > need to
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:31:55PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Sure, we can change that, but isn't the existing example of similar
> message "cannot specify both PARSER and COPY options" occurs when
> both the options have valid values? If so, we can use a similar
> principle here, no?
A better
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:33:57PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We can add more tests to validate the syntax, but my worry was to not
> increase test timing by doing (parallel) vacuum. So maybe we can do
> such syntax validation on empty tables or you have any better idea?
Using empty tables for
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:14 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 11:05:50AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> I think that
> >> this patch needs tests in sql/vacuum.sql.
> >
> > We already have one test that is testing an
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:54 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> > We can do what Mahendra
> > is saying but that will unnecessarily block some syntax and we might
> > need to introduce an extra variable to detect that in code.
>
> ISTM we have
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 11:05:50AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think that
>> this patch needs tests in sql/vacuum.sql.
>
> We already have one test that is testing an invalid combination of
> PARALLEL and FULL option, not sure of adding
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:52, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:09 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:06:04AM +0530, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
> > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 22:11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Justin for the patch.
> > >
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:09 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:06:04AM +0530, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 22:11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Justin for the patch.
> >
> > Patch looks fine to me and it is fixing the issue. After
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I think the behavior is correct, but the error message could be improved,
> > like:
> > |ERROR: cannot specify FULL with PARALLEL jobs
> > or similar.
>
> Perhaps "cannot
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:38:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I think the behavior is correct, but the error message could be improved,
> like:
> |ERROR: cannot specify FULL with PARALLEL jobs
> or similar.
Perhaps "cannot use FULL and PARALLEL options together"? I think that
this patch
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:06:04AM +0530, Mahendra Singh Thalor wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 22:11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > > wrote:
> > > > I think, Tushar point
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 22:11, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> > wrote:
> > > I think, Tushar point is that either we should allow both
> > > vacuum(parallel 0, full 1) and
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:08AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
> wrote:
> > I think, Tushar point is that either we should allow both
> > vacuum(parallel 0, full 1) and vacuum(parallel 1, full 0) or in the
> > both cases, we should through
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:25 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
wrote:
> I think, Tushar point is that either we should allow both
> vacuum(parallel 0, full 1) and vacuum(parallel 1, full 0) or in the
> both cases, we should through error.
Oh, yeah, good point. Somebody must not've been careful enough
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 17:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:22 AM tushar wrote:
> > I just came across this scenario where - vaccum o/p with (full 1,
> > parallel 0) option not working
> >
> > --working
> >
> > postgres=# vacuum (parallel 1, full 0 ) foo;
> > VACUUM
> >
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:22 AM tushar wrote:
> I just came across this scenario where - vaccum o/p with (full 1,
> parallel 0) option not working
>
> --working
>
> postgres=# vacuum (parallel 1, full 0 ) foo;
> VACUUM
> postgres=#
>
> --Not working
>
> postgres=# vacuum (full 1, parallel 0 )
32 matches
Mail list logo
