Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:42 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 10:17 AM David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The argument being made is that the enum patch adheres to established
> practices; and when adding new code that new code is encouraged to adhere
> to how existing code is written.  A vote to keep to such guidelines seems
> reasonable and sufficient; and can outweigh quite a bit of deficiency such
> existing code may have relative to the new proposal.  The burden is on the
> new code to justify why it should violate established conventions.
>
> I kind of agree with that, but:
>
> 1. We're talking about a minor deviation resulting in a very small
> amount of additional code. It's entirely unclear to me why anyone
> thinks this is a big deal either way, even if one accepts that the
> patch is "wrong", which I don't.
>
>
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?

David J.