| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options to VACUUM |
| Date: | 2021-01-29 07:14:36 |
| Message-ID: | YBO13CG6m9QB91oy@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 06:16:09PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I chose TOAST_TABLE_CLEANUP to match the INDEX_CLEANUP option, but I'm
> not wedded to that name. What do you think about PROCESS_TOAST_TABLE?
Most of the other options use a verb, so using PROCESS, or even SKIP
sounds like a good idea. More ideas: PROCESS_TOAST, SKIP_TOAST. I
don't like much the term CLEANUP here, as it may imply, at least to
me, that the toast relation is getting partially processed.
> IMO we should emit an ERROR in this case. If we ignored it, we'd end
> up processing the TOAST table even though the user asked us to skip
> it.
Issuing an error makes the most sense to me per the argument based on
cluster_rel() and copy_table_data(). Silently ignoring options can be
confusing for the end-user.
+ <para>
+ Do not clean up the TOAST table.
+ </para>
Is that enough? I would say instead: "Skip the TOAST table associated
to the table to vacuum, if any."
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-01-29 07:33:56 | Re: doc review for v14 |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-01-29 07:12:02 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit |