> On 24 Mar 2023, at 21:27, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2023-03-23 10:18:35 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 22 Mar 2023, at 18:00, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> >>> It wasn't actually that much work to write a patch to remove >>> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, see the attached. >> >> - and <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-defer-cleanup-age"/> provide protection >> against >> + provides protection against >> relevant rows being removed by vacuum, but the former provides no >> protection during any time period when the standby is not connected, >> and the latter often needs to be set to a high value to provide adequate >> >> Isn't "the latter" in the kept part of the sentence referring to the guc >> we're >> removing here? > > You're right. That paragraph generally seems a bit off. In HEAD: > > ... > > Replication slots alone don't prevent row removal, that requires > hot_standby_feedback to be used as well. > > A minimal rephrasing would be: > <para> > Similarly, <xref linkend="guc-hot-standby-feedback"/> on its own, without > also using a replication slot, provides protection against relevant rows > being removed by vacuum, but provides no protection during any time period > when the standby is not connected. Replication slots overcome these > disadvantages. > </para>
+1, that's definitely an improvement. -- Daniel Gustafsson
