On 2018-Nov-08, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Adding a field-and-value style option might be worth. Or maybe we can > > > add one option for example freeze_without_index_cleanup? > > > > That seems non-orthogonal. We have an existing flag to force freezing > > (FREEZE); we don't need a second option that does the same thing. > > Skipping the index scans (and thus necessarily the second heap pass) > > is a separate behavior which we don't currently have a way to control. > > We already have disable_page_skipping option, not (page_skipping > false). So ISMT disable_index_cleanup would be more natural. Also, > since what to do with this option is not only skipping vacuum indexes > but also skipping removeing dead tuples on heap, I think that the > option should have a more understandable name for users indicating > that both it removes dead tuples less than the normal vacuum and it's > aimed to freeze tuple more faster. Of course we document them, though.
I would name this based on the fact that it freezes quickly -- something like FAST_FREEZE perhaps. The other things seem implementation details. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
