Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I wonder if we could piggy-back on guc parameters.
>
> God, no. GUC is hopelessly complex already, we should *not* try to make
> it track different values of a parameter for different tables.
Are there any more specific reasons than "it's very complex"? After
all, all the autovacuum options already exist as GUC parameters, so you
don't have to repeat all the validation code, for example.