On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:30 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
Well, I imagined that both INDEX_CLEANUP option and SHRINK option (or perhaps TRUNCATE option) should be true by default. If we want to skip some operation of vacuum we can set each options to false like "VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP false, SHRINK true, VERBOSE true)". I think that resolves the problem but am I missing something? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
