On 2021-Mar-11, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:39 PM Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Given the short life of recheck_on_update I don't think we should > > consider it a precedent. > > Now we have a useful precedent. Apparently there is no way to truly > remove a storage parameter.
Well, if anybody would write this code: > > [...] It would be slightly better to ignore it on input (ie. make > > ALTER TABLE SET a no-op for that case), but I don't think we have > > code to do that. > > That would be better, certainly. then we could wait until the last release that supported the parameter goes out of support. (So if we had decided to keep recheck_on_update in pg11, we could remove it in pg17). > That seems a little annoying, but not worth spending too much time on. I guess it'd require that somebody is sufficiently annoyed about the few lines that supporting a no-op reloption requires. Considering that we haven't even got the code to release HEAP_MOVED_IN/HEAP_MOVED_OFF, which has been theoretically possible for ages, I'm not holding my breath. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
