Horton

Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

View thread
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>, 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: 2023-04-14T03:06:46Z
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 Thu, 2023-04-13 at 12:16 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> 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.
> 
> [RMT hat]
> 
> +1 for removing.

I am not against this in principle, but I know that there are people using
this parameter; see the discussion linked in

https://postgr.es/m/E1jkzxE-0006Dw-Dg@gemulon.postgresql.org

I can't say if they have a good use case for that parameter or not.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe