Horton

Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>, 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: 2025-03-24T16:58:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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.

-- 
nathan