Re: vacuumdb and new VACUUM options

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:20 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks for the patch!

+ if (strncasecmp(opt_str, "true", 4) != 0 &&
+ strncasecmp(opt_str, "false", 5) != 0)

Shouldn't we allow also "on" and "off", "1", "0" as a valid boolean value,
like VACUUM does?

+ char *index_cleanup;

The patch would be simpler if enum trivalue is used for index_cleanup
variable as the type.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao