Horton

Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-03-18T09:33:57Z
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.

On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:

> I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the fix
> referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better spent
> removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age alltogether.

+1  I agree it's not useful anymore.

> I don't think I have the cycles to push this through in the next weeks, but if
> we agree removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is a good idea, it seems like a
> good idea to mark it as deprecated in 16?

Hmm, for the time being, can we just "disable" it by disallowing to set
the GUC to a value different from 0?  Then we can remove the code later
in the cycle at leisure.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La gente vulgar sólo piensa en pasar el tiempo;
el que tiene talento, en aprovecharlo"