On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@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.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BbJJbx8%2BSKBU%3DXUE%2BHxZHysh9226iMfTnA69AznwRTOEGtR7Q%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com