| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(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 16:58:38 |
| Message-ID: | Z-GPPoK9lMmSeAXE@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2025-03-24 17:03:39 | Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset |
| Previous Message | Alexander Pyhalov | 2025-03-24 16:56:58 | Re: Add semi-join pushdown to postgres_fdw |