| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 22:05:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzksoDuXjS+A5TUbHmwctVJ7xt6E8sLNqYngYaVNKim5jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:33 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I read this twice yesterday and again this morning. It looks like
> you're taking an opportunity to complain/vent about
> vacuum_freeze_table_age and didn't really answer my query about why
> all the vacuum GUCs aren't defined in the one file. I'd just picked
> vacuum_freeze_table_age as a random one from vacuum.c to raise the
> point about the inconsistency about the GUC locations.
I thought that the point was obvious. Which is: the current situation
with the locations of these GUCs came about because the division
between autovacuum and VACUUM used to be a lot clearer, but that
changed. Without the locations of the GUCs also changing. More
generally, the current structure has lots of problems. And so it seems
to me that you're probably not wrong to suspect that it just doesn't
make much sense to keep them in different files now.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-04-05 22:06:47 | Re: GUC for temporarily disabling event triggers |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2023-04-05 22:04:52 | Re: Comment typo in recent push |