Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

From: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Date: 2023-04-14 19:07:37
Message-ID: 2e6a0e6b-a5d9-e2b5-4956-81c4e156c5db@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/14/23 1:15 PM, Laurenz Albe wrote:

> Let's remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, and put a note in the release notes
> that recommends using statement_timeout and hot_standby_feedback = on
> on the standby instead.
> That should have pretty much the same effect, and it is measured in
> time and not in the number of transactions.

+1.

Jonathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-04-14 19:21:18 Re: Direct I/O
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-04-14 18:56:32 Re: Direct I/O