Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 1:39 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> At Thu, 9 May 2019 20:14:51 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAD21AoBmA9H3ZRuQFF+9io9PKhP+ePS=D+ThZ6ohRMdBm2x8Pw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
> > > >> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,,
> > > >> something like --index-cleanup option is added?
> > > >> Or for (2), i.e., something like --disable-index-cleanup option is added
> > > >> as your patch does? Or for both?
> > > >
> > > > --index-cleanup=BOOL
> > >
> > > I agree with Euler's suggestion to have a 1-1 mapping between the
> > > option of vacuumdb and the VACUUM parameter
> >
> > +1. Attached the draft version patches for both options.
>
> + printf(_(" --index-cleanup=BOOLEAN do or do not index vacuuming and index cleanup\n"));
> + printf(_(" --truncate=BOOLEAN do or do not truncate off empty pages at the end of the table\n"));
>
> I *feel* that force/inhibit is suitable than true/false for the
> options.

Indeed.

+ If not specify this option
+ the behavior depends on <literal>vacuum_index_cleanup</literal> option
+ for the table to be vacuumed.

+ If not specify this option
+ the behavior depends on <literal>vacuum_truncate</literal> option
+ for the table to be vacuumed.

Those sentences should be rephrased to something like "If this option
is not specified, the bahvior...".