Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
Date: 2010-06-11 13:22:14
Message-ID: AANLkTimq9Jb9ghqvvqxhSLFkcu1AlLND9aTXchEMX5n7@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, there's clearly a mismatch. I think "Hot Standby" is the right place,
> altough you could argue that it should be together with
> vacuum_freeze_min_age and vacuum_freeze_table_age too.
>
> We seem to be missing an entry for "Write-Ahead Log / Hot Standby" in the
> config_group_names list in guc.c. hot_standby GUC marked to beling in
> WAL_SETTINGS in guc.c.
>
> What's the policy with that, should all the sections in the sample config
> file and docs have a corresponding enum in config_group_names? I guess they
> should, but many of them seem to be missing. There's no separate entry in
> config_group_names for "Write-Ahead Log / Archiving", "Resource Usage /
> Cost-Based Vacuum Delay" and "Resource Usage / Asynchronous Behavior"
> either, for example.
>
> Should I add entries in the enum for all the missing ones?

+1. This seems sensible.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-06-11 13:22:51 Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-06-11 13:16:09 Re: warning message in standby