At Thu, 9 May 2019 20:14:51 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAD21AoBmA9H3ZRuQFF+9io9PKhP+ePS=d+thz6ohrmdbm2x...@mail.gmail.com> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:01 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 06:21:09PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > > > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 às 14:19, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> > > > escreveu: > > >> The question is; we should support vacuumdb option for (1), i.e.,, > > >> something like --index-cleanup option is added? > > >> Or for (2), i.e., something like --disable-index-cleanup option is added > > >> as your patch does? Or for both? > > > > > > --index-cleanup=BOOL > > > > I agree with Euler's suggestion to have a 1-1 mapping between the > > option of vacuumdb and the VACUUM parameter > > +1. Attached the draft version patches for both options.
+ printf(_(" --index-cleanup=BOOLEAN do or do not index vacuuming and index cleanup\n")); + printf(_(" --truncate=BOOLEAN do or do not truncate off empty pages at the end of the table\n")); I *feel* that force/inhibit is suitable than true/false for the options. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center