Re: doc review for parallel vacuum
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2020-04-10T13:46:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:56:08PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:49 PM Masahiko Sawada > <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 13:55, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't have comments on your change other than the comments Amit > > already sent. Thank you for reviewing this part! > > > > I have made the modifications as per my comments. What do you think > about the attached? Couple more changes (in bold): - The <option>PARALLEL</option> option is used only for vacuum PURPOSES. - Even if this option is specified with THE <option>ANALYZE</option> option Also, this part still doesn't read well: - * amvacuumcleanup to the DSM segment if it's the first time to get it? - * from them? because they? allocate it locally and it's possible that an - * index will be vacuumed by the different vacuum process at the next If you change "it" and "them" and "it" and say "*a* different", then it'll be ok. -- Justin
Commits
-
Comments and doc fixes for commit 40d964ec99.
- a6fea120a7e3 13.0 landed