Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
Date
Msg-id AANLkTimq9Jb9ghqvvqxhSLFkcu1AlLND9aTXchEMX5n7@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses GUC category cleanup (was: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age)  (Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: warning message in standby
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers