On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:26 PM Andres Freund <and...@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
