Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code
От | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACW_s6rbgTkeoJT6a7JHPp=GOOdHv1gcEyUCp3DBK9t4Sw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 10:43 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 9:00 PM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Done that way. > > > > PSA patch. > > Your changes look good. About changing the "non-negative integer" to > "greater than or equal to zero", there is another thread [1], I am not > sure that have we concluded anything there yet. > > - pg_log_error("parallel vacuum degree must be a non-negative integer"); > + pg_log_error("parallel workers for vacuum must be greater than or > equal to zero"); > exit(1); > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS0PR01MB5716415335A06B489F1B3A8194569@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com Yeah. Tom proposed if (foo <= 0) { error:"foo must be greater than zero" } at [1]. In the subsequent messages both Michael and I agreed with that. But we also have cases like if (foo < 0) for which I think { error:"foo must be greater than or equal to zero" } would be better, similar to what's proposed. Please feel free to provide your thoughts there in that thread. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/621822.1620655780%40sss.pgh.pa.us With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: