On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:26 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2020-03-25 11:05:21 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Since we talked about how scale_factor can be used to effectively disable this
> > new feature, I thought that scale=100 was too small and suggesed 1e10 (same as
> > max for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor since 4d54543ef). That should allow
> > handling the case that analyze is disabled, or its threshold is high, or it
> > hasn't run yet, or it's running but hasn't finished, or analyze is triggered as
> > same time as vacuum.
>
> For disabling we instead should allow -1, and disable the feature if set
> to < 0.
This patch introduces both GUC and reloption. In reloptions we
typically use -1 for "disable reloption, use GUC value instead"
semantics. So it's unclear how should we allow reloption to both
disable feature and disable reloption. I think we don't have a
precedent in the codebase yet. We could allow -2 (disable reloption)
and -1 (disable feature) for reloption. Opinions?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company