On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:30:08AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >> Another concern with this approach is what it >> means for the VACUUM command itself. I haven't added an 'auto' >> spelling that is accepted by the VACUUM command in this POC version. >> But do I need to at all? Can that just be implied by not having any >> INDEX_CLEANUP option? > > It seems to me that it's better to have INDEX_CLEANUP option of VACUUM > command support AUTO for consistency. Do you have any concerns about > supporting it?
I have read through the patch, and I am surprised to see that this only makes possible to control the optimization at relation level. The origin of the complaints is that this index cleanup optimization has been introduced as a new rule that gets enforced at *system* level, so I think that we should have an equivalent with a GUC to control the behavior for the whole system. With what you are presenting here, one could only disable the optimization for each relation, one-by-one. If this optimization proves to be a problem, it's just going to be harder to users to go through all the relations and re-tune autovacuum. Am I missing something? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
