Horton

Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-09-30T13:29:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:13 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-09-26 07:32, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This is exactly my feeling too. But how about changing documentation a
> > bit as proposed above [1] to make it precise.
> >
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LQWXS_4RwLo%2BWT7jusGnBkUvXO73xQOCsydWLYBpLBEg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Yes, making the documentation more precise would be good.  Right now,
> it's a bit confusing and unclear (using phrases like "based on").
> Someone who wants to the the VACUUM PARALLEL option presumably  wants
> precise control, so specifying the exact rules would be desirable.
>

I have changed the docs to make this clear. Let me know what you think?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Commits

  1. Change the docs for PARALLEL option of Vacuum.