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"
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 |