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
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
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
14 matches
Mail list logo