Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-22T18:25:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:14 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Well, it's too late to change to change DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING to work some other way; it's been released, and we're stuck with it at this point. However, I generally believe that it is preferable to phrase options positively then negatively, so that for example one writes EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF) not EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, NO_TIMING). So I'd like to do it that way for the new options that we're proposing to add. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Add toast-level reloption for vacuum_index_cleanup
- ce59b75d449d 12.0 landed
-
heap_prepare_freeze_tuple: Simplify coding
- 2bf372a4ae26 12.0 landed
-
Fix missing word.
- 6665305e17ed 12.0 landed
-
Allow VACUUM to be run with index cleanup disabled.
- a96c41feec6b 12.0 landed
-
Don't mark pages all-visible spuriously
- d2599ecfcc74 11.0 cited