Re: Reviewing freeze map code

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2016 01:58 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>>
>>> * Joshua D. Drake (jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I thought about that, it is the word "FORCE" that bothers me.
>>>> When you use FORCE there is an assumption that no matter what, it
>>>> plows through (think rm -f). So if we don't use FROZEN, that's cool
>>>> but FORCE doesn't work either.
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that exactly what this FORCE option being contemplated would do
>>> though? Plow through the entire relation, regardless of what the VM
>>> says is all frozen or not?
>>>
>>> Seems like FORCE is a good word for that to me.
>>
>>
>> Except that we aren't FORCING a vacuum. That is the part I have contention
>> with. To me, FORCE means:
>>
>> No matter what else is happening, we are vacuuming this relation (think
>> locks).
>>
>> But I am also not going to dig in my heals. If that is truly what -hackers
>> come up with, thank you at least considering what I said.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> JD
>>
>
> As Joshua mentioned, FORCE word might imply doing VACUUM while plowing
> through locks.
> I guess that it might confuse the users.
> IMO, since this option will be a way for emergency, SCANALL word works for me.
>
> Or other ideas are,
> VACUUM IGNOREVM
> VACUUM RESCURE
>

Oops, VACUUM RESCUE is correct.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada