Horton

Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, 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: 2025-03-24T21:20:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от понедельник, 24 марта 2025 г. 23:04:39 MSK пользователь Nathan 
> Bossart написал:
>> But again, I don't see any strong reason why we must change all such
>> reloptions.
> 
> Because code of the engine should be consistent. We can't have two different 
> ways to do same thing. If we have isset flag, we should go for it everywhere, 
> where isset logic exists. Or do not use it at all. Other ways will lead us to 
> a much bigger mess, then we have today.

I don't disagree that it might be desirable for all reloptions with
corresponding GUCs to use isset_offset, but I am not following why this is
critically important.  The out-of-range default approach has worked just
fine for years, and I'm not aware of any reason that isset_offset isn't
also a suitable solution.

-- 
nathan