| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Don't consider newly inserted tuples in nbtree VACUUM. |
| Date: | 2021-03-11 17:36:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=JMVA593r61_gnbdfgakNxSTmTfa5oyU1YeXDS-bbh9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Agreed, just keep it as a no-op. Not sure whether there should be
> a documentation entry for it, but I bet we get questions if there
> isn't.
I won't be adding back the psql completion stuff. Why can't adding
back the reloption have the desired effect of avoiding issues with
pg_upgrade and pg_restore, while also leaving the reloption
practically invisible to users?
Naturally I would prefer to keep cruft about an inert reloption out of
the documentation.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-03-11 19:02:10 | pgsql: Refactor and generalize the ParallelSlot machinery. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-11 17:03:47 | Re: pgsql: Don't consider newly inserted tuples in nbtree VACUUM. |