> IIRC using GUC hooks to handle dependencies like this is generally frowned
> upon because it tends to not work very well [0]. We could probably get it
> to work for this particular case, but IMHO we should still try to avoid
> this approach.
Thanks for pointing this out. I agree, this could lead to false logs being
emitted.
> so it might not be crucial to emit a
> WARNING here.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, we can let the autovacuum launcher emit the
log, but it will need to be careful not flood the logs when this condition exists ( i.e.
log only the first time the condition is detected or log every once in a while )
The additional complexity is not worth it.
Regards,
Sami