Re: error context for vacuum to include block number

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz
Cc: pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Date: 2019-12-17 11:17:36
Message-ID: 20191217.201736.697104214473928631.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:49:56 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
> > ("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
> > lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")
> >
> > I suppose you don't think the other way around is better?
> > lazy_vacuum_index_heap
>
> Dunno. Let's see if others have other thoughts on the matter. FWIW,
> I have a long history at naming things in a way others don't like :)

lazy_vacuum_heap_index() seems confusing to me. I read the name as
Michael did before looking the above explanation.

lazy_vacuum_heap_and_index() is clearer to me.
lazy_vacuum_heap_with_index() could also work but I'm not sure it's
further better.

I see some function names like that, and some others that have two
verbs bonded by "_and_".

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2019-12-17 11:42:53 client auth docs seem to have devolved
Previous Message Dmitry Dolgov 2019-12-17 10:59:50 Re: Extracting only the columns needed for a query