Horton

Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-04-11T18:20:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rework text in replication slots documentation

  2. Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

  3. Allow read only connections during recovery, known as Hot Standby.

Attachments

Hi,

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@pg.o alias...

Updated patch attached. I think we should either apply something like that
patch, or at least add a <warning/> to the docs.

Greetings,

Andres Freund