В письме от понедельник, 24 марта 2025 г. 22:26:17 MSK пользователь Nathan Bossart написал:
> > And second general idea: changing engine is bad, at least when you can > > manage without changing it. > > You have asserted this a couple of times without providing any reasons why. > I know of no general project policy about changing the reloption code. I > would expect this code to evolve just like any other part of Postgres, > whether it's to improve performance or to expand the feature set. Because this code was carefully designed, and it is intentionally was made the way it is. It can be redesigned, but redesigning is not just adding another field to a C structure. It requires very carefully consideration, not as a part of option patch, but as a redesign patch. See my answer to Robert. We can have isset_offset, but then we have redesign all options with custom unset behavior to use it, instead of unreachable default value. This will make it consistent then. -- Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj Fuzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
