Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-06-11T10:25:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11/06/10 05:36, Fujii Masao wrote: > vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is categorized as "Statement Behavior" > parameter in the document. On the other hand, it's categorized > as "Hot Standby" one in postgresql.conf. Why do we need to do so? Yeah, there's clearly a mismatch. I think "Hot Standby" is the right place, altough you could argue that it should be together with vacuum_freeze_min_age and vacuum_freeze_table_age too. We seem to be missing an entry for "Write-Ahead Log / Hot Standby" in the config_group_names list in guc.c. hot_standby GUC marked to beling in WAL_SETTINGS in guc.c. What's the policy with that, should all the sections in the sample config file and docs have a corresponding enum in config_group_names? I guess they should, but many of them seem to be missing. There's no separate entry in config_group_names for "Write-Ahead Log / Archiving", "Resource Usage / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay" and "Resource Usage / Asynchronous Behavior" either, for example. Should I add entries in the enum for all the missing ones? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com