Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JNz2NuN2oc3Y+DpSEd2ZV7Z8o=3aZrWfaX-xEuG1FAMw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 8:34 AM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 11:38, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > It might be that we need to do it the way > > I originally proposed the different values of amparallelvacuumoptions > > or maybe some variant of it where the default value can clearly say > > that IndexAm doesn't support a parallel vacuum. > > Okay. After more thoughts on your original proposal, what I get > confused on your proposal is that there are two types of flags that > enable and disable options. Looking at 2, 3 and 4, it looks like all > options are disabled by default and setting these flags means to > enable them. On the other hand looking at 1, it looks like these > options are enabled by default and setting the flag means to disable > it. 0 makes sense to me. So how about having 0, 2, 3 and 4? > Yeah, 0,2,3 and 4 sounds reasonable to me. Earlier, Dilip also got confused with option 1. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: