Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Date: 2023-03-18 09:33:57
Message-ID: 20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:

> I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the fix
> referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better spent
> removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age alltogether.

+1 I agree it's not useful anymore.

> I don't think I have the cycles to push this through in the next weeks, but if
> we agree removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is a good idea, it seems like a
> good idea to mark it as deprecated in 16?

Hmm, for the time being, can we just "disable" it by disallowing to set
the GUC to a value different from 0? Then we can remove the code later
in the cycle at leisure.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La gente vulgar sólo piensa en pasar el tiempo;
el que tiene talento, en aprovecharlo"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2023-03-18 09:41:23 Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format
Previous Message vignesh C 2023-03-18 09:03:27 Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format