> On 5 Jul 2020, at 13:35, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> This patch has been Waiting on Author since April, will you have time to
> address the questions during this commitfest, or should it be moved to
> Returned
> with Feedback?
This has been closed as Returned with Feedback, please feel free to
> On 28 Mar 2020, at 11:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>
>> About your patch, I don't think this is clearer. The fillfactor stuff
>> is valid to be mentioned, but the way it's being proposed
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> About your patch, I don't think this is clearer. The fillfactor stuff
> is valid to be mentioned, but the way it's being proposed makes it sound
> like the main purpose of VACUUM FULL is to b
On 1/30/20 6:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Rebased against 40d964ec997f64227bc0ff5e058dc4a5770a70a9
I'm not sure that description of parallel vacuum in the middle of
non-full vs. full vacuum is act
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:10 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Rebased against 40d964ec997f64227bc0ff5e058dc4a5770a70a9
>
> I'm not sure that description of parallel vacuum in the middle of
> non-full vs. full vacuum is actually that good.
>
I have done
On 2020-01-20 06:30, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Rebased against 40d964ec997f64227bc0ff5e058dc4a5770a70a9
I'm not sure that description of parallel vacuum in the middle of
non-full vs. full vacuum is actually that good. I think those sentences
should be moved to a separate paragraph.
About your p
Rebased against 40d964ec997f64227bc0ff5e058dc4a5770a70a9
>From b9f10d21de62354d953e388642fcdfc6d97a4a47 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:54:28 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v2] doc: VACUUM FULL: separate paragraph; fillfactor
FILLFACTOR seems to apply here. Also, "n
Patch applies and compiles.
Given that the paragraph begins with "Plain VACUUM (without FULL)", it is
better to have the VACUUM FULL explanations on a separate paragraph, and the
The original patch does that (Fabien agreed when I asked off list)
Indeed. I may have looked at it in reverse,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 11:58:18AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I started writing this patch to avoid the possibly-misleading phrase: "with
>> no
>> extra space" (since it's expected to typically take ~2x space, or 1x "extra"
>> space).
>>
>> But the original phrase "with no extra space" seems
Hello Justin,
I started writing this patch to avoid the possibly-misleading phrase: "with no
extra space" (since it's expected to typically take ~2x space, or 1x "extra"
space).
But the original phrase "with no extra space" seems to be wrong anyway, since
it actually follows fillfactor, so sa
I started writing this patch to avoid the possibly-misleading phrase: "with no
extra space" (since it's expected to typically take ~2x space, or 1x "extra"
space).
But the original phrase "with no extra space" seems to be wrong anyway, since
it actually follows fillfactor, so say that. Possibly s
11 matches
Mail list logo
