Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

[Jonathan S. Katz]

On 4/12/23 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 rmt@pg.o 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?

Jonathan

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.

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature