Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:44:20 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Message-ID: <ZBswZOh68Yh7t9df@telsasoft.com>
References: <20230317230930.nhsgk3qfk7f4axls@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZBswZOh68Yh7t9df%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

It can be useful to do a "rolling transition", and it's something I do
often.

But I can't see why that would be useful here?  It seems like something
that could be done after the feature freeze.  It's removing a feature,
not adding one.

-- 
Justin