On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 4:55 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > My suggestion for the parameter name is "autovacuum_disable_truncate".
Then it would have a different name than the reloption, and the opposite sense. In most cases, we've been able to keep those matching -- autovacuum vs. autovacuum_enabled being, I believe, the only current mismatch. Also, how sure are we that turning this off globally is a solid idea? Off-hand, it doesn't sound that bad: there are probably situations in which autovacuum never truncates anything anyway just because the tail blocks of the relations always contain at least 1 tuple. But we should be careful not to add a setting that is far more likely to get people into trouble than to get them out of it. It would be good to hear what other people think about the risk vs. reward tradeoff in this case. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
