Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2019-03-08T05:10:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:04 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, the patch already has new reloption vacuum_index_cleanup and
> > default value is true but you meant I should change its name to
> > index_cleanup?
>
> No, I mean that you should make it so that someone writes VACUUM
> (INDEX_CLEANUP false) instead of VACUUM (DISABLE_INDEX_CLEANUP).
>

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?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


Commits

  1. Add toast-level reloption for vacuum_index_cleanup

  2. heap_prepare_freeze_tuple: Simplify coding

  3. Fix missing word.

  4. Allow VACUUM to be run with index cleanup disabled.

  5. Don't mark pages all-visible spuriously