Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-20 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:17:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > Uh, vacuum_defer_cleanup_age sets an upper limit on how long, in terms >> > of

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:17:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Uh, vacuum_defer_cleanup_age sets an upper limit on how long, in terms > > of xids, that a standby query can run before cancel, like > >

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Uh, vacuum_defer_cleanup_age sets an upper limit on how long, in terms > of xids, that a standby query can run before cancel, like > old_snapshot_threshold, no? No, not really. It affects the behavior of the master, not

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/19/2016 09:59 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:00:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:33:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: Actually, I think vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:00:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:33:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > Based on that

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:33:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > Based on that argument, we would never be able to remove any >> > configuration

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:33:20AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Berkus 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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-19 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Josh Berkus 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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/18/2016 01:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2016-10-09 21:51:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof now, and a lot of >> the work in reducing replay conflicts, I think the utility of >> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is at an end. I really

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-18 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2016-10-09 21:51:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof now, and a lot of > the work in reducing replay conflicts, I think the utility of > vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is at an end. I really meant so submit a patch > to remove it to 9.6, but it

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/18/2016 01:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 10/12/2016 05:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-18 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 10/12/2016 05:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof now, and a lot of >>> the work in reducing replay

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-18 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/12/2016 05:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof now, and a lot of >> the work in reducing replay conflicts, I think the utility of >> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is at an end.

Re: [HACKERS] Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

2016-10-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Given that hot_standby_feedback is pretty bulletproof now, and a lot of > the work in reducing replay conflicts, I think the utility of > vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is at an end. I really meant so submit a patch > to remove it