public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: 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 11:32:50 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1+s7hyed2ZSwTC42N6VqCV73CGtzBRfcf1qgjCSJbO3Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<ZDWLvS1GghESoX/[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1+s7hyed2ZSwTC42N6VqCV73CGtzBRfcf1qgjCSJbO3Gw@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-04-11 11:33:01 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>> I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given the
>>>> "late submission", but I tend to think it's not worth caring the complication
>>>> of vacuum_defer_cleanup_age forward.
>>>
>>> I don't see any utility in waiting; it just makes the process of
>>> removing it take longer for no reason.
>>>
>>> As long as it's done before the betas, it seems completely reasonable to
>>> remove it for v16.
>>
>> Added the RMT.
>>
>> We really should have a [email protected] alias...
(I had thought something as much -- will reach out to pginfra about options)
>> Updated patch attached. I think we should either apply something like that
>> patch, or at least add a <warning/> to the docs.
>>
> +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.
Jonathan
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