Ranier Vilela <ranier...@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