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.
> IMO we should emit an ERROR in this case. If we ignored it, we'd end
> up processing the TOAST table even though the user asked us to skip
> it.
Issuing an error makes the most sense to me per the argument based on
cluster_rel() and copy_table_data(). Silently ignoring options can be
confusing for the end-user.
+ <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."
--
Michael
