| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip kumar <dilip(dot)kumar(at)huawei(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jan Lentfer <Jan(dot)Lentfer(at)web(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] |
| Date: | 2015-01-22 02:45:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KYSY+Rby+mYhuv7XoYr02NQ3g3MjCWf1BWKBjYgyTa3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> I didn't understand the coding in GetQueryResult(); why do we check the
> result status of the last returned result only? It seems simpler to me
> to check it inside the loop, but maybe there's a reason you didn't do it
> like that?
>
> Also, what is the reason we were ignoring those errors only in
> "completedb" mode? It doesn't seem like it would cause any harm if we
> did it in all cases. That means we can just not have the "completeDb"
> flag at all.
>
IIRC it is done to match the existing behaviour where such errors are
ignored we use this utility to vacuum database.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-01-22 02:52:46 | Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-01-22 02:41:43 | Re: Merging postgresql.conf and postgresql.auto.conf |