On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:35 AM Shinya Kato <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 4:56 PM Maciek Sakrejda <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 21:10 Shinya Kato <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:04 AM Masahiko Sawada > >> <[email protected]> > > Fixed, but I have a comment. I noticed > >> minor wording inconsistencies, > >> > > e.g., 'started' vs. 'initiated' and 'due to' vs. 'because of'. Should > >> > > I unify these terms? > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > >> It seems the inconsistency between 'started' and 'initiated' has not > >> been resolved. Come to think of it, since the column name is > >> triggerd_by, I think it would be best to standardize on 'triggered'. I > >> have attached a patch to fix this. > > > > > > I'm late to the discussion, but have you considered just "trigger" for the > > column name? It's shorter and just as clear. > > Thanks for the suggestion. I’d prefer to keep the column name > “triggered_by”: “trigger” is widely used to mean the trigger object in > PostgreSQL and can be ambiguous here, whereas “triggered_by” clearly > conveys that this field shows what initiated the VACUUM. >
I'd +1 for triggered_by over just trigger, but I actually think triggered_by should be avoided as well for the same reason (term overload). We already use the verb "launch" as the word to describe this action in the existing autovacuum docs, but I was unable to come up with something that both sounded good and made sense for the manual vacuum case, so now I would lean towards "initialized_by". Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
