Horton

Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>

View thread
From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <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>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2025-03-26T19:05:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
В письме от среда, 26 марта 2025 г. 21:43:42 MSK пользователь Robert Haas 
написал:

> why is it worth arguing about? 
I have full model of current reloptions and my patch unrolled in my head. They 
have some harmony. (Mine has more harmony, but it is not the case). 
isset_offset the way it is introduced breaks that harmony. Harmony worth it.

> I cannot see how this really makes any great difference.

git blame reloptions.c | grep "Robert Haas" | wc -l
112

git blame reloptions.c | grep Álvaro | wc -l
792

For me Alvary is the keeper of the concept of reloption. And he sees 
difference. If he would said isset_offset is good, I will follow. Until then I 
will follow my sense of harmony and code beauty as much as I can.

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