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. > IMO we should emit an ERROR in this case. If we ignored it, we'd end > up processing the TOAST table even though the user asked us to skip > it. Issuing an error makes the most sense to me per the argument based on cluster_rel() and copy_table_data(). Silently ignoring options can be confusing for the end-user. + <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." -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
