On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2023-Mar-17, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I started writing a test for vacuum_defer_cleanup_age while working on the > > fix > > referenced above, but now I am wondering if said energy would be better > > spent > > removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age alltogether. > > +1 I agree it's not useful anymore. > > > I don't think I have the cycles to push this through in the next weeks, but > > if > > we agree removing vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is a good idea, it seems like a > > good idea to mark it as deprecated in 16? > > Hmm, for the time being, can we just "disable" it by disallowing to set > the GUC to a value different from 0? Then we can remove the code later > in the cycle at leisure.
It can be useful to do a "rolling transition", and it's something I do often. But I can't see why that would be useful here? It seems like something that could be done after the feature freeze. It's removing a feature, not adding one. -- Justin
