On 1/19/22, 11:15 AM, "John Naylor" <john.naylor@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