Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tXmc2-00EBP0-6Q for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:30:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tXmc0-003NCg-Sq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:30:05 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tXmc0-003NCY-Ck for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:30:05 +0000 Received: from mail.postgrespro.ru ([93.174.131.139]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tXmby-000PMW-27 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:30:04 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=postgrespro.ru; s=mx2023; t=1736883001; bh=vUJEENlmxFEsHq6Aw995JCfErVs3U6ecpDVaFe9K2Fw=; h=Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:From; b=dwoYyGw0cI3xjWp26tNX0iZenUV5PLaL7qm+N0z90vlIeGdKerT2uqUgaQzsFP07G FUXr1e28mgJ4ObVUEZ9kmbJXjOG6eRrKxcinToUTP6gfNJS2jEUWlcCV22756Ej01k hqO+8jAHIdtN5JNz7S8PykQCTIJwFO2bQdKvUd0Em7KTuWWNtVcdEz2rW9dpBvJ5w0 Z6UIMy/PCW1oLo560s/7GJuec4j35XhCpa2IpY80WJbmbOy3fdfSLguCkTwb0DPTA+ tr0utc2xBThm7j1GKgOZjvG4meKe8RD6LIE77M7BK9lgrlTTOqRRaEsbT0FqDvzgXl 3TNs1Wh6cC9tQ== Received: from [172.30.48.90] (unknown [172.30.48.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru) by mail.postgrespro.ru (Postfix/587) with ESMTPSA id 0C95160442; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:30:01 +0300 (MSK) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------llmyGohC41tsb3BgRpL6SIeV" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:29:59 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection To: Melanie Plageman Cc: Tom Lane , Daniel Gustafsson , Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL Hackers References: <202501141821.eiduwdflzxuf@alvherre.pgsql> Content-Language: en-US From: Alena Rybakina In-Reply-To: X-KSMG-AntiPhishing: NotDetected, bases: 2025/01/14 15:51:00 X-KSMG-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: not scanned X-KSMG-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KSMG-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Secure Mail Gateway, version 2.1.0.7854, bases: 2025/01/14 18:20:00 #27022932 X-KSMG-AntiVirus-Status: NotDetected, skipped X-KSMG-LinksScanning: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KSMG-Message-Action: skipped X-KSMG-Rule-ID: 1 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------llmyGohC41tsb3BgRpL6SIeV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 14.01.2025 22:01, Melanie Plageman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote: >> >>> I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and >>> VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback. >> Looks good to me. I checked these two queries, whose results appear >> correct: >> >> 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where category ilike '%vacuum%'; >> name │ category >> ───────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────── >> autovacuum │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_analyze_threshold │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_freeze_max_age │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_max_workers │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_naptime │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_vacuum_insert_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_vacuum_threshold │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> autovacuum_worker_slots │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming >> vacuum_cost_delay │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay >> vacuum_cost_limit │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay >> vacuum_cost_page_dirty │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay >> vacuum_cost_page_hit │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay >> vacuum_cost_page_miss │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay >> vacuum_failsafe_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing >> vacuum_freeze_min_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing >> vacuum_freeze_table_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing >> vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing >> vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing >> vacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age │ Vacuuming / Freezing >> >> >> 55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where (short_desc ilike '%vacuum%' or extra_desc ilike '%vacuum%') and category not ilike '%vacuum%'; >> name │ category >> ─────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────── >> autovacuum_work_mem │ Resource Usage / Memory >> log_autovacuum_min_duration │ Reporting and Logging / What to Log >> maintenance_work_mem │ Resource Usage / Memory >> vacuum_buffer_usage_limit │ Resource Usage / Memory > Yea, Alena also mentioned these GUCs that are in different groups. I > think it is okay for these four to remain in their current locations > as their current groupings seem descriptive enough. > Looking at them, I am willing to agree with you -- Regards, Alena Rybakina Postgres Professional --------------llmyGohC41tsb3BgRpL6SIeV Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 14.01.2025 22:01, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:21 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:

I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.
Looks good to me.  I checked these two queries, whose results appear
correct:

55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where category ilike '%vacuum%';
                 name                  │              category
───────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────
 autovacuum                            │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor       │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_analyze_threshold          │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_freeze_max_age             │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_max_workers                │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age   │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_naptime                    │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay          │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit          │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_vacuum_insert_scale_factor │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold    │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor        │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_vacuum_threshold           │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 autovacuum_worker_slots               │ Vacuuming / Automatic Vacuuming
 vacuum_cost_delay                     │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
 vacuum_cost_limit                     │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
 vacuum_cost_page_dirty                │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
 vacuum_cost_page_hit                  │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
 vacuum_cost_page_miss                 │ Vacuuming / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay
 vacuum_failsafe_age                   │ Vacuuming / Freezing
 vacuum_freeze_min_age                 │ Vacuuming / Freezing
 vacuum_freeze_table_age               │ Vacuuming / Freezing
 vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age         │ Vacuuming / Freezing
 vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age       │ Vacuuming / Freezing
 vacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age     │ Vacuuming / Freezing


55432 18devel 560655=# select name, category from pg_settings where (short_desc ilike '%vacuum%' or extra_desc ilike '%vacuum%') and category not ilike '%vacuum%';
            name             │              category
─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────
 autovacuum_work_mem         │ Resource Usage / Memory
 log_autovacuum_min_duration │ Reporting and Logging / What to Log
 maintenance_work_mem        │ Resource Usage / Memory
 vacuum_buffer_usage_limit   │ Resource Usage / Memory
Yea, Alena also mentioned these GUCs that are in different groups. I
think it is okay for these four to remain in their current locations
as their current groupings seem descriptive enough.

Looking at them, I am willing to agree with you

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
--------------llmyGohC41tsb3BgRpL6SIeV--