Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options to VACUUM

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com>

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "k.jamison@fujitsu.com" <k.jamison@fujitsu.com>
Date: 2021-01-29T18:43:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On 1/28/21, 11:15 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 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.

I changed it to PROCESS_TOAST.

> +       <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."

Done.

Nathan

Commits

  1. Add option PROCESS_TOAST to VACUUM