From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
Cc: | pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Date: | 2019-12-17 11:17:36 |
Message-ID: | 20191217.201736.697104214473928631.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:49:56 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> 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 :)
lazy_vacuum_heap_index() seems confusing to me. I read the name as
Michael did before looking the above explanation.
lazy_vacuum_heap_and_index() is clearer to me.
lazy_vacuum_heap_with_index() could also work but I'm not sure it's
further better.
I see some function names like that, and some others that have two
verbs bonded by "_and_".
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2019-12-17 11:42:53 | client auth docs seem to have devolved |
Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2019-12-17 10:59:50 | Re: Extracting only the columns needed for a query |