Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-04-13T16:16:38Z
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 →
-
Rework text in replication slots documentation
- 27d04ed5310a 17.0 landed
-
Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
- 1118cd37eb61 16.0 landed
-
Allow read only connections during recovery, known as Hot Standby.
- efc16ea52067 9.0.0 cited
On 4/13/23 11:32 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> >> +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. (didn't need too much more time). [RMT hat] +1 for removing. I looked at some data and it doesn't seem like vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is used in any significant way, whereas hot_standby_feedback is much more widely used. Given this, and all the problems + arguments made in the thread, we should just get rid of it for v16. There are cases where we should deprecate before removing, but I don't think this one based upon usage and having a better alternative. Per [1] it does sound like we can make some improvements to hot_standby_feedback, but those can wait to v17. We should probably set $DATE to finish this, too. I don't think it's a rush, but we should give enough time before Beta 1. Jonathan [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230317230930.nhsgk3qfk7f4axls%40awork3.anarazel.de