From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |
Date: | 2016-10-18 21:30:45 |
Message-ID: | 961c72cb-9ed1-7351-6834-2188d0f983c0@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/18/2016 01:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-10-09 21:51:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof now, and a lot of
>> the work in reducing replay conflicts, I think the utility of
>> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is at an end. I really meant so submit a patch
>> to remove it to 9.6, but it got away from me.
>
> HS feedback doesn't e.g. work well with delayed and/or archived replay,
> whereas defer_cleanup does.
Oh, point! See, that's why I polled, I knew there was something I was
forgetting about.
> On the other hand, removing it would make some of the reasoning around
> GetOldestXmin() a bit easier.
Enough to make it worth breaking the above?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2016-10-18 21:46:18 | Re: Indirect indexes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-18 21:28:09 | Re: "make check" and pg_hba.conf |