Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset
Date
Msg-id Z-HMgcIWbvVCrrzW@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset  (Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от понедельник, 24 марта 2025 г. 23:04:39 MSK пользователь Nathan 
> Bossart написал:
>> But again, I don't see any strong reason why we must change all such
>> reloptions.
> 
> Because code of the engine should be consistent. We can't have two different 
> ways to do same thing. If we have isset flag, we should go for it everywhere, 
> where isset logic exists. Or do not use it at all. Other ways will lead us to 
> a much bigger mess, then we have today.

I don't disagree that it might be desirable for all reloptions with
corresponding GUCs to use isset_offset, but I am not following why this is
critically important.  The out-of-range default approach has worked just
fine for years, and I'm not aware of any reason that isset_offset isn't
also a suitable solution.

-- 
nathan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Logging which local address was connected to in log_line_prefix
Next
From: Andrei Lepikhov
Date:
Subject: Re: Add estimated hit ratio to Memoize in EXPLAIN to explain cost adjustment