From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
Date: | 2019-03-22 18:25:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYa=acEAcqcbP285WWo4co1XiPVg5TUcPzcExXDO4asdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:14 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> IIUC we've discussed the field-and-value style vacuum option. I
> suggested that since we have already the disable_page_skipping option
> the disable_page_skipping option would be more natural style and
> consistent. I think "VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP false)" seems consistent
> with its reloption but not with other vacuum options. So why does only
> this option (and probably up-coming new options) need to support new
> style? Do we need the same change to the existing options?
Well, it's too late to change to change DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING to work
some other way; it's been released, and we're stuck with it at this
point. However, I generally believe that it is preferable to phrase
options positively then negatively, so that for example one writes
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF) not EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, NO_TIMING). So
I'd like to do it that way for the new options that we're proposing to
add.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-22 18:27:07 | Re: Concurrency bug with vacuum full (cluster) and toast |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-22 18:19:27 | Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans |