Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Before the maintenance builtin, it would be natural to see "gc.auto=0" > and do this same behavior, but that will not be general enough in the > future. I do think it is an excellent change to move the check done in the need_to_gc() to check the value of gc.auto to run_auto_gc() for exactly the reason the log message of this patch gives. And after the function is renamed to run_auto_maintenance(), at some point the variable that gets checked would also be updated, and we'd eventually reach the same state, I would think. But it is so small a change that it probably is not worth the book-keeping burden of remembering that the maintenance topic needs to build on the patch to update auto-gc. > If you prefer, I can pull this out into a series on its own to be > tracked separately. So let's leave it as-is. Thanks.
