Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age?
Date: 2023-04-14 03:06:46
Message-ID: f8b69c30afd245475c70d2c629f0eb0860e997b6.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
>
> > > +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.
>
> [RMT hat]
>
> +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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-04-14 03:50:29 Re: User functions for building SCRAM secrets
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-04-13 23:27:46 Re: User functions for building SCRAM secrets