On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 4:56 PM Maciek Sakrejda <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 21:10 Shinya Kato <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 9:04 AM Masahiko Sawada >> <[email protected]> > > Fixed, but I have a comment. I noticed >> minor wording inconsistencies, >> > > e.g., 'started' vs. 'initiated' and 'due to' vs. 'because of'. Should >> > > I unify these terms? >> > >> > +1 >> >> It seems the inconsistency between 'started' and 'initiated' has not >> been resolved. Come to think of it, since the column name is >> triggerd_by, I think it would be best to standardize on 'triggered'. I >> have attached a patch to fix this. > > > I'm late to the discussion, but have you considered just "trigger" for the > column name? It's shorter and just as clear.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’d prefer to keep the column name “triggered_by”: “trigger” is widely used to mean the trigger object in PostgreSQL and can be ambiguous here, whereas “triggered_by” clearly conveys that this field shows what initiated the VACUUM. -- Best regards, Shinya Kato NTT OSS Center
