From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz] > I don't think that we want to use a too generic name and it seems more natural > to reflect the context where it is used in the parameter name. > If we were to shrink with a similar option for other contexts, we would > most likely use a different option. Depending on the load pattern, users > should also be able to disable or enable a subset of contexts as well. > > So I agree with Julien that [auto]vacuum_shrink_enabled is more adapted > for this stuff.
OK, I renamed it to vacuum_shrink_enabled. From: Julien Rouhaud [mailto:rjuju...@gmail.com] > One last thing, I think we should at least add one regression test for > this setting. The one you provided previously seems perfectly suited. Thanks, added. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
disable-vacuum-truncation_v3.patch
Description: disable-vacuum-truncation_v3.patch
