Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimq9Jb9ghqvvqxhSLFkcu1AlLND9aTXchEMX5n7@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
GUC category cleanup (was: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > 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? +1. This seems sensible. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: