public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>
To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:16:38 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<ZDWLvS1GghESoX/[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAA4eK1+s7hyed2ZSwTC42N6VqCV73CGtzBRfcf1qgjCSJbO3Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On 4/13/23 11:32 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> 

>> +1 to do one of the above. I think there is a good chance that
>> somebody might be doing more harm by using it so removing this
>> shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I have not heard of people using
>> it but OTOH it is difficult to predict so giving some time is also not
>> a bad idea.
>>
>> Do others have any opinion/suggestion on this matter?
> 
> I need a bit more time to study this before formulating an opinion on 
> whether we should remove it for v16. In any case, I'm not against 
> documentation.

(didn't need too much more time).

[RMT hat]

+1 for removing.

I looked at some data and it doesn't seem like vacuum_defer_cleanup_age 
is used in any significant way, whereas hot_standby_feedback is much 
more widely used. Given this, and all the problems + arguments made in 
the thread, we should just get rid of it for v16.

There are cases where we should deprecate before removing, but I don't 
think this one based upon usage and having a better alternative.

Per [1] it does sound like we can make some improvements to 
hot_standby_feedback, but those can wait to v17.

We should probably set $DATE to finish this, too. I don't think it's a 
rush, but we should give enough time before Beta 1.

Jonathan

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230317230930.nhsgk3qfk7f4axls%40awork3.anarazel.de


Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP_signature (840B, ../[email protected]/2-OpenPGP_signature)
  download

view thread (7+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox