On 14.01.2025 22:01, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>
>>> I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
>>> VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.
>> Looks good to me. I checked these two queries, whose results appear
>> correct:
>>
>> 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where category ilike '%vacuum%';
>> name │ category
>> ───────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────
>> autovacuum │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_analyze_threshold │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_freeze_max_age │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_max_workers │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_naptime │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_vacuum_insert_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_vacuum_threshold │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> autovacuum_worker_slots │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
>> vacuum_cost_delay │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
>> vacuum_cost_limit │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
>> vacuum_cost_page_dirty │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
>> vacuum_cost_page_hit │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
>> vacuum_cost_page_miss │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
>> vacuum_failsafe_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing
>> vacuum_freeze_min_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing
>> vacuum_freeze_table_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing
>> vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing
>> vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing
>> vacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing
>>
>>
>> 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where (short_desc ilike '%vacuum%' or extra_desc ilike '%vacuum%') and category not ilike '%vacuum%';
>> name │ category
>> ─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────
>> autovacuum_work_mem │ Resource Usage / Memory
>> log_autovacuum_min_duration │ Reporting and Logging / What to Log
>> maintenance_work_mem │ Resource Usage / Memory
>> vacuum_buffer_usage_limit │ Resource Usage / Memory
> Yea, Alena also mentioned these GUCs that are in different groups. I
> think it is okay for these four to remain in their current locations
> as their current groupings seem descriptive enough.
>
Looking at them, I am willing to agree with you
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional