On 1/19/22, 11:15 AM, "John Naylor" <john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > This seems to be the motivating reason for wanting new configurability > on the server side. In any case, new knobs are out of scope for this > thread. If the use case is compelling enough, may I suggest starting a > new thread?
Sure. Perhaps the new top-level command will use these new options someday. > Regarding the thread subject, I've been playing with the grammar, and > found it's quite easy to have > > VACUUM FOR WRAPAROUND > or > VACUUM FOR EMERGENCY > > since FOR is a reserved word (and following that can be an IDENT plus > a strcmp check) and cannot conflict with table names. This sounds a > bit more natural than VACUUM LIMIT. Opinions? I personally think VACUUM FOR WRAPAROUND is the best of the options provided thus far. Nathan
