On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:20 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> > > > escreveu: > > >> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,, > > >> something like --index-cleanup option is added? > > >> Or for (2), i.e., something like --disable-index-cleanup option is added > > >> as your patch does? Or for both? > > > > > > --index-cleanup=BOOL > > > > I agree with Euler's suggestion to have a 1-1 mapping between the > > option of vacuumdb and the VACUUM parameter > > +1. Attached the draft version patches for both options.
Thanks for the patch! + if (strncasecmp(opt_str, "true", 4) != 0 && + strncasecmp(opt_str, "false", 5) != 0) Shouldn't we allow also "on" and "off", "1", "0" as a valid boolean value, like VACUUM does? + char *index_cleanup; The patch would be simpler if enum trivalue is used for index_cleanup variable as the type. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
