On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:38:56AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Julien Rouhaud [mailto:rjuju...@gmail.com] >> FWIW, I prefer shrink over truncate, though I'd rather go with >> vacuum_shink_enabled as suggested previously. > > Thanks. I'd like to leave a committer to choose the name. FWIW, I > chose shrink_enabled rather than vacuum_shrink_enabled because this > property may be used in other shrink situations in the future. What > I imagined was that with the zheap, DELETE or some maintenance > operation, not vacuum, may try to shrink the table. I meant this > property to indicate "whether this table shrinks or not" regardless > of the specific operation that can shrink the table.
I don't think that we want to use a too generic name and it seems more natural to reflect the context where it is used in the parameter name. If we were to shrink with a similar option for other contexts, we would most likely use a different option. Depending on the load pattern, users should also be able to disable or enable a subset of contexts as well. So I agree with Julien that [auto]vacuum_shrink_enabled is more adapted for this stuff. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
