Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Date
Msg-id 20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote:

> I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the fix
> referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better spent
> removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age alltogether.

+1  I agree it's not useful anymore.

> I don't think I have the cycles to push this through in the next weeks, but if
> we agree removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is a good idea, it seems like a
> good idea to mark it as deprecated in 16?

Hmm, for the time being, can we just "disable" it by disallowing to set
the GUC to a value different from 0?  Then we can remove the code later
in the cycle at leisure.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La gente vulgar sólo piensa en pasar el tiempo;
el que tiene talento, en aprovecharlo"



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow logical replication to copy tables in binary format