Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

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