Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 1:27 PM Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su> wrote:
> > > You've just changed the whole engine, for what is seems to be an
> > > exceptional case, that can be solved via existing means.
> > I have not changed the whole engine.  I have added an optional integer
> > field to a single struct.
>
> That potentially changes the behaviour of all boolean options. They will never
> be what they were before.

If you want to convince people to change something, you need to make
real arguments, not just wildly accuse Nathan of having broken
everything. He has not "changed the behavior of the whole engine," and
this does not change the behavior of any Boolean options that don't
elect to use it. It is of course possible that there is some better
way to solve the problem than what Nathan picked, but this is really a
very minor code change that appears to solve the problem in a very
natural way.

I don't understand why you're upset about this, and I don't think it's
fair to beat up Nathan for doing something that looks totally normal
without a really clear reason.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com