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-QdGq24pOqNen6s@nathan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 08:09:53AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm willing to say "I don't know why this is so very important to Nikolay,
> but I trust him that it is, and since my opinion isn't that strong and this
> isn't a big deal, so I will accommodate the person screaming that adding
> this will make their life miserable in a real way."  Maybe others need more
> evidence of what that misery looks like?

To summarize the discussion thus far, Robert and I seem to be okay with
isset_offset, David is leaning no (+.25 yes and -.75 no), and Niolay and
Álvaro appear to favor an enum approach, which would look like this [0].
That's +2.25 and -2.75.

Is that an accurate analysis of where folks stand?

[0] https://postgr.es/m/attachment/174762/v2-0001-change-vacuum_truncate-relopt-to-enum.patch

-- 
nathan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jasper Smit
Date:
Subject: Assertion with aborted UPDATE in subtransaction
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Current master hangs under the debugger after Parallel Seq Scan (Linux, MacOS)