| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options |
| Date: | 2019-05-09 01:00:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20190509010056.GA14573@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)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, because that's more
intuitive:
- --index-cleanup=3Dfalse =3D> VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP=3Dfalse)
- --index-cleanup=3Dtrue =3D> VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP=3Dtrue)
- no --index-cleanup means to rely on the reloption.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-09 01:32:51 | Re: Wrong return code in vacuumdb when multiple jobs are used |
| Previous Message | Matsumura, Ryo | 2019-05-09 00:18:14 | RE: Patch: doc for pg_logical_emit_message() |