On 2018-Nov-08, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@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