| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Teaching users how they can get the most out of HOT in Postgres 14 |
| Date: | 2021-06-11 22:28:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznkR7MJgXyGUWpT0LGeu37e87U52ALigP6cyL7ea9dbfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 6:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Another concern with this approach is what it
> > means for the VACUUM command itself. I haven't added an 'auto'
> > spelling that is accepted by the VACUUM command in this POC version.
> > But do I need to at all? Can that just be implied by not having any
> > INDEX_CLEANUP option?
>
> It seems to me that it's better to have INDEX_CLEANUP option of VACUUM
> command support AUTO for consistency. Do you have any concerns about
> supporting it?
I suppose we should have it. But now we have to teach vacuumdb about
this new boolean-like enum too. It's a lot more new code than I would
have preferred, but I suppose that it makes sense.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-11 22:28:41 | Re: recovery test failures on hoverfly |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-06-11 22:12:29 | Re: Replication protocol doc fix |