Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> writes:
> At function parallel_vacuum_process_all_indexes there is
> a typo with a logical connector.
> I think that correct is &&, because both of the operators are
> bool types [1].
> As a result, parallel vacuum workers can be incorrectly enabled.
Since they're bools, the C spec requires them to promote to integer
0 or 1, therefore the & operator will yield the desired result.
So there's not going to be any incorrect behavior. Nonetheless,
I agree that && would be better, because it would short-circuit
the evaluation of parallel_vacuum_index_is_parallel_safe() when
there's no need.
regards, tom lane