On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Francisco Olarte <fola...@peoplecall.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > For me -f & -j is not perfect, but better than not having it. It can > deadlock when given certain sets of catalog tables, either by making > it go for the full db or by a perverse set of -t options. But any DBA > needing them together should, IMO, have resources to write ( or have > someone else write for him ) a 20-liner wrapping and feeding them via > -t. After all, not every tool/option is for everyone, and everything > has it prerequisites. >
Okay, but I think that doesn't mean it should deadlock when used by somewhat naive user. I am not sure every user who wants to use -f and -j is smart enough to write a script as you are suggesting. I think if more people see your proposal as meaningful and want to leave current usage of -f and -j as it is, then probably, we should issue a warning indicating such a risk. -- 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
