Message-ID: <f8b69c30afd245475c70d2c629f0eb0860e997b6.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>, Amit Kapila
	 <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Alvaro Herrera
	 <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 05:06:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <490f1ebd-03fc-d996-cc5e-7991569a9e45@postgresql.org>
References: <20230317230930.nhsgk3qfk7f4axls@awork3.anarazel.de>
	 <20230318093357.g4e3eexqg6dxmuel@alvherre.pgsql>
	 <ZBswZOh68Yh7t9df@telsasoft.com>
	 <20230322170048.ffbnfr5o2jrjgb2f@awork3.anarazel.de>
	 <ZDWLvS1GghESoX/d@telsasoft.com>
	 <20230411182010.zsldtjrxe5m2bqzp@awork3.anarazel.de>
	 <CAA4eK1+s7hyed2ZSwTC42N6VqCV73CGtzBRfcf1qgjCSJbO3Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <bf42784f-4d57-0a3d-1a06-ffac1a09318c@postgresql.org>
	 <490f1ebd-03fc-d996-cc5e-7991569a9e45@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f8b69c30afd245475c70d2c629f0eb0860e997b6.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2023-04-13 at 12:16 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> 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=E2=80=AFPM Andres Freund <andres@anaraz=
el.de>=20
>=20
> > > +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 no=
t
> > > a bad idea.
> > >=20
> > > Do others have any opinion/suggestion on this matter?
> >=20
> > I need a bit more time to study this before formulating an opinion on=
=20
> > whether we should remove it for v16. In any case, I'm not against=20
> > documentation.
>=20
> [RMT hat]
>=20
> +1 for removing.

I am not against this in principle, but I know that there are people using
this parameter; see the discussion linked in

https://postgr.es/m/E1jkzxE-0006Dw-Dg@gemulon.postgresql.org

I can't say if they have a good use case for that parameter or not.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe