On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I named it so because it calls both lazy_vacuum_index
> ("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX") and
> lazy_vacuum_heap("PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP")
>
> I suppose you don't think the other way around is better?
> lazy_vacuum_index_heap
Dunno. Let's see if others have other thoughts on the matter. FWIW,
I have a long history at naming things in a way others don't like :)
--
Michael