Re: Reviewing freeze map code

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

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada