> But before we get there, we have to contend with the fact that what constitutes "missing" has already > subtly changed since v18, that change is not yet reflected in vacuumdb, and ideally the definition > would change back to the v18 definition before v19 feature freeze, but that isn't guaranteed.
OK, I am confused a bit about the details of this point, but it looks like this work is happening in another thread, maybe [0] ?
Yes, but that thread was about to close and it was in the process of being moved to [1] as I was writing that message. The only thing to keep in mind is that if the effort in [1] stalls, then the definition of missing in vacuumdb will likely get marginally more complex. I hope that doesn't happen, and I believe that it won't, but I don't want anybody blind-sided if it does.
So with regards to this thread, vacuumdb using this new option will be out of scope. This could be handled in a future thread.
