Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2023-04-11 11:33:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given the
> > > "late submission", but I tend to think it's not worth caring the complication
> > > of vacuum_defer_cleanup_age forward.
> >
> > I don't see any utility in waiting; it just makes the process of
> > removing it take longer for no reason.
> >
> > As long as it's done before the betas, it seems completely reasonable to
> > remove it for v16.
>
> Added the RMT.
>
> We really should have a rmt(at)pg(dot)o alias...
>
> Updated patch attached. I think we should either apply something like that
> patch, or at least add a <warning/> to the docs.
>

+1 to do one of the above. I think there is a good chance that
somebody might be doing more harm by using it so removing this
shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I have not heard of people using
it but OTOH it is difficult to predict so giving some time is also not
a bad idea.

Do others have any opinion/suggestion on this matter?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.