On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, the patch already has new reloption vacuum_index_cleanup and
> > default value is true but you meant I should change its name to
> > index_cleanup?
>
> No, I mean that you should make it so that someone writes VACUUM
> (INDEX_CLEANUP false) instead of VACUUM (DISABLE_INDEX_CLEANUP).
>
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?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
