Horton

Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-04-13T03:34:24Z
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 Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

+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?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.