On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm, the patch already has new reloption vacuum_index_cleanup and > > default value is true but you meant I should change its name to > > index_cleanup? > > No, I mean that you should make it so that someone writes VACUUM > (INDEX_CLEANUP false) instead of VACUUM (DISABLE_INDEX_CLEANUP). >
IIUC we've discussed the field-and-value style vacuum option. I suggested that since we have already the disable_page_skipping option the disable_page_skipping option would be more natural style and consistent. I think "VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP false)" seems consistent with its reloption but not with other vacuum options. So why does only this option (and probably up-coming new options) need to support new style? Do we need the same change to the existing options? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
