Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:33:57 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Message-ID: <20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230317230930.nhsgk3qfk7f4axls@awork3.anarazel.de>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

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"