Horton

Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>

View thread
From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>, Will Storey <will@summercat.com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2025-03-24T17:03:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
В письме от понедельник, 24 марта 2025 г. 19:58:38 MSK пользователь Nathan 
Bossart написал:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 09:40:24AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > So, given the precedent of vacuum_index_cleanup and the above, we should
> > turn this into an enum that accepts all existing boolean literal inputs
> > and
> > also has a undocumented "unset" default value that the user is not allowed
> > to explicitly set but instead only gets used to resolve an unset reloption
> > at runtime.
> 
> This would involve adding a field to relopt_enum_elt_def to declare a value
> as "unsettable," right?  That seems feasible, but IMHO it's comparable to
> adding a field to reopt_parse_elt.

If you look at view's check_option option, you will see, how unsettable enum 
default can be implemented using existing code.


-- 
Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj
Fuzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional
Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su