RE: Re: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at the end of relation

From: Masahiko Sawada [mailto:sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com]
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:30 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:23 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > > I don't see a patch with the naming updated, here or there, and I'm
> > > > going to be really unhappy if we end up with inconsistent naming
> > > > between two patches that do such fundamentally similar things. -1
> > > > from me to committing either one until that inconsistency is resolved.
> > >
> > > Agreed. I've just submitted the latest version patch that adds
> > > INDEX_CLEANUP option and vacuum_index_cleanup reloption. I already
> > > mentioned on that thread but I agreed with adding phrase positively
> > > than negatively. So if we got consensus on such naming the new options
> > > added by this patch could be something like SHRINK option (with
> > > true/false) and vacuum_shrink reloption.
> >
> > No, that's just perpetuating the problem. Then you have an option
> > SHRINK here that you set to TRUE to skip something, and an option
> > INDEX_CLEANUP over there that you set to FALSE to skip something.
> >
>
> Well, I imagined that both INDEX_CLEANUP option and SHRINK option (or
> perhaps TRUNCATE option) should be true by default. If we want to skip
> some operation of vacuum we can set each options to false like "VACUUM
> (INDEX_CLEANUP false, SHRINK true, VERBOSE true)". I think that
> resolves the problem but am I missing something?

I almost have the same view as Sawada-san. The reloption vacuum_shrink_enabled is a positive name and follows the naming style of other reloptions. I hope this matches the style you have in mind.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa