On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:23 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
No, that's just perpetuating the problem. Then you have an option SHRINK here that you set to TRUE to skip something, and an option INDEX_CLEANUP over there that you set to FALSE to skip something. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
