On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 9:20 PM Kirill Reshke <reshkekir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 16:13, Shinya Kato <shinya11.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This patch introduces a mode column to provide this visibility. The > > possible values are: > > - normal: A standard, user-initiated VACUUM or a regular autovacuum run. > > - anti-wraparound: An autovacuum run launched specifically to prevent > > transaction ID wraparound. > > - failsafe: A vacuum that has entered failsafe mode to prevent > > imminent transaction ID wraparound. > > > Thought? > > Just a small comment: > > I am more used to Lazy vs Eager vacuum types. It is how we use to call > them in doc and code. Maybe this wording will be better?
Thanks for the feedback! Are you suggesting it would be better to change "normal" to "lazy" and "anti-wraparound" to "eager"? My hesitation is that "lazy" is a term used to contrast with VACUUM FULL, and the "lazy" vs. "eager" distinction also exists for tuple freezing logic within vacuum. Reusing these terms for a different purpose could be confusing. I also find "anti-wraparound" to be a much clearer and more descriptive term than "eager". Unless there’s a strong preference otherwise, I’d like to keep “anti-wraparound” and “failsafe” as-is, and keep “normal” (or possibly “plain”/“regular” if that reads better). -- Best regards, Shinya Kato NTT OSS Center
