Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C120F22.8070708@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | vacuum_defer_cleanup_age (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/06/10 05:36, Fujii Masao wrote: > vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is categorized as "Statement Behavior" > parameter in the document. On the other hand, it's categorized > as "Hot Standby" one in postgresql.conf. Why do we need to do so? Yeah, there's clearly a mismatch. I think "Hot Standby" is the right place, altough you could argue that it should be together with vacuum_freeze_min_age and vacuum_freeze_table_age too. We seem to be missing an entry for "Write-Ahead Log / Hot Standby" in the config_group_names list in guc.c. hot_standby GUC marked to beling in WAL_SETTINGS in guc.c. What's the policy with that, should all the sections in the sample config file and docs have a corresponding enum in config_group_names? I guess they should, but many of them seem to be missing. There's no separate entry in config_group_names for "Write-Ahead Log / Archiving", "Resource Usage / Cost-Based Vacuum Delay" and "Resource Usage / Asynchronous Behavior" either, for example. Should I add entries in the enum for all the missing ones? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: