Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options

At Thu, 9 May 2019 20:14:51 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAD21AoBmA9H3ZRuQFF+9io9PKhP+ePS=D+ThZ6ohRMdBm2x8Pw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
> > >> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,,
> > >> something like --index-cleanup option is added?
> > >> Or for (2), i.e., something like --disable-index-cleanup option is added
> > >> as your patch does? Or for both?
> > >
> > > --index-cleanup=BOOL
> >
> > I agree with Euler's suggestion to have a 1-1 mapping between the
> > option of vacuumdb and the VACUUM parameter
>
> +1. Attached the draft version patches for both options.

+ printf(_(" --index-cleanup=BOOLEAN do or do not index vacuuming and index cleanup\n"));
+ printf(_(" --truncate=BOOLEAN do or do not truncate off empty pages at the end of the table\n"));

I *feel* that force/inhibit is suitable than true/false for the
options.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center