| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add MAIN_RELATION_CLEANUP and SECONDARY_RELATION_CLEANUP options to VACUUM |
| Date: | 2021-01-29 18:43:44 |
| Message-ID: | 855FB31E-5616-4910-BFF2-ABFE24716F50@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/28/21, 11:15 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 06:16:09PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I chose TOAST_TABLE_CLEANUP to match the INDEX_CLEANUP option, but I'm
>> not wedded to that name. What do you think about PROCESS_TOAST_TABLE?
>
> Most of the other options use a verb, so using PROCESS, or even SKIP
> sounds like a good idea. More ideas: PROCESS_TOAST, SKIP_TOAST. I
> don't like much the term CLEANUP here, as it may imply, at least to
> me, that the toast relation is getting partially processed.
I changed it to PROCESS_TOAST.
> + <para>
> + Do not clean up the TOAST table.
> + </para>
> Is that enough? I would say instead: "Skip the TOAST table associated
> to the table to vacuum, if any."
Done.
Nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v7-0001-Add-PROCESS_TOAST-option-to-VACUUM.patch | application/octet-stream | 11.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-01-29 18:44:30 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit |
| Previous Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2021-01-29 17:56:47 | Re: Allow CLUSTER, VACUUM FULL and REINDEX to change tablespace on the fly |