Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection

Hi!

On 14.01.2025 01:35, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:46 PM Alvaro Herrera<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>
>>> Since I didn't hear back about this and I don't see an obvious
>>> alternative reorganization in guc_tables.c, I plan to just push the
>>> attached patch that updates only postgresql.conf.sample.
>> Apologies, I was very unclear -- I didn't want to talk about the
>> ordering of entries in the code, but the categorization. See the
>> config_group_names list in guc_tables.c, which defines some groups.
>> Each setting belongs into a group, and those groups correspond to what
>> the sample config file lists as section/subsection titles and to the
>> grouping in the docs. Also, this categorization affects how the entries
>> are listed in the pg_settings view and in "postgres --describe-config",
>> which feed from the same tables.
> Oh dear, I had no idea that these categories existed. I suppose I
> never paid attention to the category column in pg_settings nor used
> --describe-config. Attached is a patch to fix this. I checked both
> pg_settings and --describe-config output, and it seems to work.
>
> I'm quite sorry about the extra noise this is causing (especially for
> people with patch sets requiring rebasing).
>
>> Perhaps with your changes (assuming I read your commit message right),
>> we need new groups:
>> VACUUMING
>> VACUUMING_FREEZING
>> VACUUMING_AUTOVACUUM
> I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
> VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.

Looks good and convenient, thanks for the patch!

I noticed another guc autovacuum_work_mem, which belongs more to the
autovacuum category in my opinion, although it belongs to RESOURCES_MEM,
but in fact, only autovacuum uses it.

--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional