On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:30 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:57 AM Tsunakawa, Takayuki > <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > From: David Steele [mailto:da...@pgmasters.net] > > > This patch appears to have been stalled for a while. > > > > > > Takayuki -- the ball appears to be in your court. Perhaps it would be > > > helpful to summarize what you think are next steps? > > > > disable_index_cleanup is handled by Sawada-san in another thread. I > > understand I've reflected all review comments in the latest patch, and > > replied to the opinions/proposals, so the patch status is kept "needs > > review." (I hope new fire won't happen...) > > I don't see a patch with the naming updated, here or there, and I'm > going to be really unhappy if we end up with inconsistent naming > between two patches that do such fundamentally similar things. -1 > from me to committing either one until that inconsistency is resolved.
Agreed. I've just submitted the latest version patch that adds INDEX_CLEANUP option and vacuum_index_cleanup reloption. I already mentioned on that thread but I agreed with adding phrase positively than negatively. So if we got consensus on such naming the new options added by this patch could be something like SHRINK option (with true/false) and vacuum_shrink reloption. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
