On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 9:08 AM David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 9:00 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote: > >> Hello >> >> I don't understand why this shouldn't work exactly like >> vacuum_index_cleanup (cf. vacuum_rel lines 2170ff). That would require >> no new mechanism. >> >> > That reloption is already an enum and there is no GUC to defer to when the > value is unset. It doesn't seem like an equivalent scenario. AUTO is a > perfectly useful value as opposed to an undocumented sentinel for > unset/missing. > > Sorry, the "already an enum" comment is wrong - I see the commit now where we basically re-implemented boolean value processing logic and added an "auto" option. Basically we'd do this to make a boolean-compatible enum adding an undocumented value "null" as a valid and default set value and then interpret "null" as meaning "go use the vacuum_truncate GUC". It's too late to argue against sentinel values so I suppose this would have to be acceptable. David J.
