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 <and...@anarazel.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.
(didn't need too much more time). [RMT hat] +1 for removing.I looked at some data and it doesn't seem like vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is used in any significant way, whereas hot_standby_feedback is much more widely used. Given this, and all the problems + arguments made in the thread, we should just get rid of it for v16.
There are cases where we should deprecate before removing, but I don't think this one based upon usage and having a better alternative.
Per [1] it does sound like we can make some improvements to hot_standby_feedback, but those can wait to v17.
We should probably set $DATE to finish this, too. I don't think it's a rush, but we should give enough time before Beta 1.
Jonathan[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230317230930.nhsgk3qfk7f4axls%40awork3.anarazel.de
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
