From: Masahiko Sawada [mailto:sawada.m...@gmail.com] > 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?
I almost have the same view as Sawada-san. The reloption vacuum_shrink_enabled is a positive name and follows the naming style of other reloptions. I hope this matches the style you have in mind. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
