On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:14 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIUC we've discussed the field-and-value style vacuum option. I
> suggested that since we have already the disable_page_skipping option
> the disable_page_skipping option would be more natural style and
> consistent. I think "VACUUM (INDEX_CLEANUP false)" seems consistent
> with its reloption but not with other vacuum options. So why does only
> this option (and probably up-coming new options) need to support new
> style? Do we need the same change to the existing options?
Well, it's too late to change to change DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING to work
some other way; it's been released, and we're stuck with it at this
point. However, I generally believe that it is preferable to phrase
options positively then negatively, so that for example one writes
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF) not EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, NO_TIMING). So
I'd like to do it that way for the new options that we're proposing to
add.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
