On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:14 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Well, it's too late to change to change DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING to work some other way; it's been released, and we're stuck with it at this point. However, I generally believe that it is preferable to phrase options positively then negatively, so that for example one writes EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF) not EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, NO_TIMING). So I'd like to do it that way for the new options that we're proposing to add. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
