On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:33:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > Based on that argument, we would never be able to remove any
> > configuration parameter ever.
> Well... no. Based on that argument, we should only remove
> configuration parameters if we're fairly certain that they are not
> useful any more, which will be rare, but is not never. I agree that
> *if* vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is no longer useful, it should be
> removed. I'm just not convinced that it's truly obsolete, and you
> haven't really offered much of an argument for that proposition. It
> does something sufficiently different from hot_standby_feedback that
> I'm not sure it's accurate to say that one can substitute for the
> other, and indeed, I see Andres has already suggested some scenarios
> where it could still be useful.
> Actually, I think vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is, and always has been, an
> ugly hack. But for some people it may be the ugly hack that is
> letting them continue to use PostgreSQL.
I see vacuum_defer_cleanup_age as old_snapshot_threshold for standby
servers --- it cancels transactions rather than delaying cleanup.
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: