On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:35 AM Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 4:56 PM Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 21:10 Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:04 AM Masahiko Sawada
> >> <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> > > Fixed, but I have a comment. I noticed
> >> minor wording inconsistencies,
> >> > > e.g., 'started' vs. 'initiated' and 'due to' vs. 'because of'. Should
> >> > > I unify these terms?
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >>
> >> It seems the inconsistency between 'started' and 'initiated' has not
> >> been resolved. Come to think of it, since the column name is
> >> triggerd_by, I think it would be best to standardize on 'triggered'. I
> >> have attached a patch to fix this.
> >
> >
> > I'm late to the discussion, but have you considered just "trigger" for the column name? It's shorter and just as
clear.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I’d prefer to keep the column name
> “triggered_by”: “trigger” is widely used to mean the trigger object in
> PostgreSQL and can be ambiguous here, whereas “triggered_by” clearly
> conveys that this field shows what initiated the VACUUM.
>
I'd +1 for triggered_by over just trigger, but I actually think
triggered_by should be avoided as well for the same reason (term
overload). We already use the verb "launch" as the word to describe
this action in the existing autovacuum docs, but I was unable to come
up with something that both sounded good and made sense for the manual
vacuum case, so now I would lean towards "initialized_by".
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net
