> > > > But before we get there, we have to contend with the fact that what > constitutes "missing" has already > > subtly changed since v18, that change is not yet reflected in vacuumdb, > and ideally the definition > > would change back to the v18 definition before v19 feature freeze, but > that isn't guaranteed. > > OK, I am confused a bit about the details of this point, but it looks > like this work is happening > in another thread, maybe [0] ? >
Yes, but that thread was about to close and it was in the process of being moved to [1] as I was writing that message. The only thing to keep in mind is that if the effort in [1] stalls, then the definition of missing in vacuumdb will likely get marginally more complex. I hope that doesn't happen, and I believe that it won't, but I don't want anybody blind-sided if it does. So with regards to this thread, vacuumdb using this new option will be > out of scope. This could > be handled in a future thread. > +1 [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CADkLM%3DfPcci6oPyuyEZ0F4bWqAA7HzaWO%2BZPptufuX5_uWt6kw%40mail.gmail.com
