On 1/28/21, 11:15 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 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.
I changed it to PROCESS_TOAST.
> + <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."
Done.
Nathan
