| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2019-03-08 05:10:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoBTTgGRPcdeP1f-fzeZ+9OrW7+F_2SGHwD8ozrouTaWSw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hmm, the patch already has new reloption vacuum_index_cleanup and
> > default value is true but you meant I should change its name to
> > index_cleanup?
>
> No, I mean that you should make it so that someone writes VACUUM
> (INDEX_CLEANUP false) instead of VACUUM (DISABLE_INDEX_CLEANUP).
>
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?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-08 05:59:11 | Re: Fix memleaks and error handling in jsonb_plpython |
| Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2019-03-08 05:08:16 | The two "XML Fixes" patches still in need of review |