On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 05:00:51PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
I explained my reasons for not proceeding with that approach upthread [0]. I don't think there are any existing reloptions where there are two ways to say "use the GUC." For ones with corresponding GUCs, unsetting the storage parameter is the mechanism for doing so. vacuum_index_cleanup's AUTO option would be the closest thing, but there's no backing GUC, so the meaning of AUTO doesn't change unless someone changes the code. TBH I'm not understanding the pushback for adding a way to determine whether the storage parameter is actually set. It's very simple, and it seems like it could be useful elsewhere. But more importantly, it allows us to more closely match the behavior of the existing reloptions with GUCs, and it prevents type mismatches (e.g., the reloption is an enum but the GUC is a Boolean). [0] https://postgr.es/m/Z-Fvmnf57z6zM8Ky%40nathan -- nathan
