Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> 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...

(I had thought something as much -- will reach out to pginfra about options)

>> 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?

I need a bit more time to study this before formulating an opinion on
whether we should remove it for v16. In any case, I'm not against
documentation.

Jonathan