Thread

1. vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

   Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2010-06-11T02:36:46Z

   Hi,
   
   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?
   
   Regards,
   
   -- 
   Fujii Masao
   NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
   NTT Open Source Software Center
   
   

2. Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

   Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> — 2010-06-11T10:25:38Z

   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
   
   

3. Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

   Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> — 2010-06-11T13:22:14Z

   On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
   <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
   > 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?
   
   +1. This seems sensible.
   
   Regards,
   
   -- 
   Fujii Masao
   NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
   NTT Open Source Software Center
   
   

4. GUC category cleanup (was: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age)

   Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> — 2010-06-15T05:09:54Z

   Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
   
   > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
   > > 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?
   > 
   > +1. This seems sensible.
   
   Here is a patch to do that. I used terms in the documentation for category
   names. Also, some uncategorized variables moved into detailed groups.
   
   Added categories:
     Resource Usage / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
     Resource Usage / Background Writer
     Resource Usage / Asynchronous Behavior
     Write-Ahead Log / Archiving
     Write-Ahead Log / Standby Servers
   
   Renamed in the configuration file:
     Replication ==> Streaming Replication
     Hot Standby ==> Standby Servers
   
   Regards,
   ---
   Takahiro Itagaki
   NTT Open Source Software Center
   
   

5. Re: GUC category cleanup

   Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> — 2010-06-15T06:05:30Z

   On 15/06/10 08:09, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
   >
   > Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com>  wrote:
   >
   >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
   >>> 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?
   >>
   >> +1. This seems sensible.
   >
   > Here is a patch to do that. I used terms in the documentation for category
   > names. Also, some uncategorized variables moved into detailed groups.
   
   Thanks, looks good to me.
   
   -- 
      Heikki Linnakangas
      EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com