> On 22 Mar 2023, at 18:00, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> It wasn't actually that much work to write a patch to remove
> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, see the attached.
- and <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-defer-cleanup-age"/> provide protection against
+ provides protection against
relevant rows being removed by vacuum, but the former provides no
protection during any time period when the standby is not connected,
and the latter often needs to be set to a high value to provide adequate
Isn't "the latter" in the kept part of the sentence referring to the guc we're
removing here?
- * It's possible that slots / vacuum_defer_cleanup_age backed up the
- * horizons further than oldest_considered_running. Fix.
+ * It's possible that slots backed up the horizons further than
+ * oldest_considered_running. Fix.
While not the fault of this patch, can't we use the opportunity to expand
"Fix." to a short "Fix this by ..." sentence? Or remove "Fix." perhaps, either
of those would improve the comment IMHO.
> I don't know whether others think we should apply it this release, given the
> "late submission", but I tend to think it's not worth caring the complication
> of vacuum_defer_cleanup_age forward.
It might be late in the cycle, but as it's not adding something that might
break but rather removing something that's known for being problematic (and not
useful) I think it's Ok.
--
Daniel Gustafsson