Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 9:14 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> FWIW one of the big reasons I didn't proceed with the enum approach

initially is because I worried that I'd end up in a similar discussion
> about how terrible _that_ approach is. When I look at that patch [0], I
> genuinely wonder if folks would accept that without the isset_offset
> context. Maybe I misjudged...
>
>
I think this discussion was going to happen no matter which approach was
actually committed. The concept of "is set" is too obvious and clean a
solution to not be brought up and considered; while at the same time this
argument about staying consistent with nearby code, even in the face of a
hack-ish implementation, was going to need to be explicitly considered.

This discussion was preordained the moment we decided to add
vacuum_truncate to the system. It was only a matter of when. And while
hindsight is 20-20 your own comments regarding your uncertainty suggests
you at least had an inkling of suspicion that this discussion was going to
be part of the outcome of committing this.

I would have been fine with: "I committed this approach because it's
cleaner, and here is why I dislike the enum approach. Let's have a
discussion in May if this choice is unappealing for reasons." Getting in
the user-facing feature "DBA choice of default" before feature freeze was
warranted and the patch as committed did meet all the necessary
requirements.

David J.