From: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 02:51:47 +0300
Message-ID: <fece94f9-7b04-4af9-a95d-ba768593a49a@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAKRu_bn7wXa2pwrD-1EOM=dZOW9oNj+cgpALrtzc4k-YbwXJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAKRu_Z15QyTX5n-u4mdXbCWZAw4Y-XNrpQaxL7npOca7Z_PWA@mail.gmail.com>
<202501132046.m4mcvxxswznu@alvherre.pgsql>
<CAAKRu_bn7wXa2pwrD-1EOM=dZOW9oNj+cgpALrtzc4k-YbwXJA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi!
On 14.01.2025 01:35, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 3:46 PM Alvaro Herrera<alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> On 2025-Jan-13, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>
>>> Since I didn't hear back about this and I don't see an obvious
>>> alternative reorganization in guc_tables.c, I plan to just push the
>>> attached patch that updates only postgresql.conf.sample.
>> Apologies, I was very unclear -- I didn't want to talk about the
>> ordering of entries in the code, but the categorization. See the
>> config_group_names list in guc_tables.c, which defines some groups.
>> Each setting belongs into a group, and those groups correspond to what
>> the sample config file lists as section/subsection titles and to the
>> grouping in the docs. Also, this categorization affects how the entries
>> are listed in the pg_settings view and in "postgres --describe-config",
>> which feed from the same tables.
> Oh dear, I had no idea that these categories existed. I suppose I
> never paid attention to the category column in pg_settings nor used
> --describe-config. Attached is a patch to fix this. I checked both
> pg_settings and --describe-config output, and it seems to work.
>
> I'm quite sorry about the extra noise this is causing (especially for
> people with patch sets requiring rebasing).
>
>> Perhaps with your changes (assuming I read your commit message right),
>> we need new groups:
>> VACUUMING
>> VACUUMING_FREEZING
>> VACUUMING_AUTOVACUUM
> I've gone with VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM, VACUUM_COST_DELAY, and
> VACUUM_FREEZING, but I am open to feedback.
Looks good and convenient, thanks for the patch!
I noticed another guc autovacuum_work_mem, which belongs more to the
autovacuum category in my opinion, although it belongs to RESOURCES_MEM,
but in fact, only autovacuum uses it.
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru, melanieplageman@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, daniel@yesql.se, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection
In-Reply-To: <fece94f9-7b04-4af9-a95d-ba768593a49a@postgrespro.ru>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox