| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Will Storey <will(at)summercat(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset |
| Date: | 2025-03-24 14:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYXm5uMts3SOMmGj_K8K=2YR-PAL9tFGzRdT_+69hYQNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:43 AM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Overall, the biggest reason I didn't proceed with the enum is because it
> felt like it was making it the user's problem. Rather than just teaching
> our code how to determine if a reloption was explicitly set, we'd be
> introducing unnecessary complexity to the user, or at least we'd be trying
> to closely match the existing functionality in an attempt to hide this
> complexity from them.
+1. Giving the user the ability to set the option to a value called
"unset" doesn't seem right to me.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-03-24 14:56:18 | Re: Snapshot related assert failure on skink |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-24 14:43:38 | Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset |