Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 22:33:01 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error
Message-ID: <20200415033301.GJ2228@telsasoft.com>
References: 
 <CA+fd4k7cj3rO3prCydHQd_pXShQ2rYbUyEJWeE8o+sXtB_1xmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200409083319.GN2228@telsasoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1Ku4X-RYcT+h=ngE8Yt6fMCD2rXpAvG0rh=j=PS+K0zmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200410133532.GA2228@telsasoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1+o5V9_mGyLAcFvkFA0ZMjzwXk8JM89xfFSwjaVmO97zA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+fd4k5Kqfzo76SEzicxD_rWC+D1vPW9x80fwDosMPwAQJKGXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+zuccT0xWD6h97ib2WCe-4kNsfwKUA5FnDz3QwPYumnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200414022242.GG1492@paquier.xyz>
 <CAA4eK1K-xqoe4u8NbAcr-yxh6bhKQE4eNAhNsy8AM_NvcqWRwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1KDDi=EQSWK5cKz-kf=hEbe7DEQ-iW6LK3H37hYZ+GV3A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1KDDi=EQSWK5cKz-kf=hEbe7DEQ-iW6LK3H37hYZ+GV3A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:54:17AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:55 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:52 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > -VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- disables parallel vacuum option
> > > +VACUUM (PARALLEL 1) tmp; -- parallel vacuum disabled for temp tables
> > >  WARNING:  disabling parallel option of vacuum on "tmp" --- cannot  vacuum temporary tables in parallel
> > > +VACUUM (PARALLEL 0, FULL TRUE) tmp; -- can specify parallel disabled (even though that's implied by FULL)
> > >
> > > To fully close the gap in the tests, I would also add a test for
> > > (PARALLEL 1, FULL false) where FULL directly specified, even if that
> > > sounds like a nit.  That's fine to test even on a temporary table.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, I will do this once we agree on the error message stuff.
> >
> 
> I have changed one of the existing tests to test the option suggested
> by you.  Additionally, I have changed the docs as per suggestion from
> Sawada-san.  I haven't changed the error message.  Let me know if you
> have any more comments?

You did:
|...then the number of workers is determined based on the number of
|indexes that support parallel vacuum operation on the [-relation,-]{+relation+} and is further
|limited by <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.

I'd suggest to say instead:
|...then the number of workers is determined based on the number of
|indexes ON THE RELATION that support parallel vacuum operation, and is further
|limited by <xref linkend="guc-max-parallel-workers-maintenance"/>.

-- 
Justin