On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Francisco Olarte >> I don't know, but it seems like the documentation for vacuumdb >> currently says, more or less, "Hey, if you use -j with -f, it may not >> work!", which seems unacceptable to me. It should be the job of the >> person writing the feature to make it work in all cases, not the job >> of the person using the feature to work around the problem when it >> doesn't. > > The most interesting use case of vacuumdb is lazy vacuuming, I think, so > committing that patch as it was submitted previously was a good step > forward even if it didn't handle VACUUM FULL 100%. > > I agree that it's better to have both modes Just Work in parallel, which > is the point of this subsequent patch. So let's move forward. I > support Francisco's effort to make -f work with -j. I don't have a > strong opinion on which of the various proposals presented so far is the > best way to implement it, but let's figure that out and get it done. >
After reading Francisco's proposal [1], I don't think it is directly trying to make -f and -j work together. He is proposing to make it work by providing some new options. As you are wondering upthread, I think it seems reasonable to disallow -f with parallel vacuuming if no tables are specified. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BbJJbx8%2BSKBU%3DXUE%2BHxZHysh9226iMfTnA69AznwRTOEGtR7Q%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
