At Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:16:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote in
> David Rowley writes:
> > Thanks for chipping in on this. Can you confirm if you think this
> > should apply to VACUUM options? We're not talking GUCs here.
>
> My druthers would be to treat them similarly to GUCs.
IMHO I like this direct
David Rowley writes:
> Thanks for chipping in on this. Can you confirm if you think this
> should apply to VACUUM options? We're not talking GUCs here.
My druthers would be to treat them similarly to GUCs.
I recognize that I might be in the minority, and that doing
so would entail touching a lot
(On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 01:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > Over in [1], Horiguchisan mentioned a few things about VACUUM's new
> > BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT option.
>
> > 1) buffer_usage_limit in the ERROR messages should be consistently in
> > uppercase.
>
> FWIW, I think this is exac
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 4:00 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> Over in [1], Horiguchisan mentioned a few things about VACUUM's new
> BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT option.
>
> 1) buffer_usage_limit in the ERROR messages should be consistently in
> uppercase.
I did notice that all the other VACUUM options don't do
David Rowley writes:
> Over in [1], Horiguchisan mentioned a few things about VACUUM's new
> BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT option.
> 1) buffer_usage_limit in the ERROR messages should be consistently in
> uppercase.
FWIW, I think this is exactly backward, and so is whatever code you
based this on. Our us
