Correction for vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age

On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 08:22 +0300, Pavel Luzanov wrote:

When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter,
I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum).
Please consider this patch for a fix.

It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it?
Changing it might break existing outside links.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

Hello,

When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter,
I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum).
Please consider this patch for a fix.

It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it?
Changing it might break existing outside links.

Not essential, it's true. I haven't seen any rules in the documentation
on forming links for guc.

But how many external links could have been made since September 30?
And how many times in the future will people encounter inconsistency
in constructing a link to this parameter?

It seems to me that it's better to fix it.

But right now I need a link to this parameter for an article,
and I want to see if there's a chance to change the reference to the
familiar one
or use the current one.

Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2021-Oct-12, Pavel Luzanov wrote:

Hello,

When trying to make a link to the new vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age parameter,
I found the wrong ID for this guc (missed word vacuum).
Please consider this patch for a fix.

It is good to be consistent, but the name of the link is not essential, is it?
Changing it might break existing outside links.

Not essential, it's true. I haven't seen any rules in the documentation
on forming links for guc.

But how many external links could have been made since September 30?
And how many times in the future will people encounter inconsistency
in constructing a link to this parameter?

It seems to me that it's better to fix it.

Yeah, this one is new as of commit 1e55e7d1755c; ISTM we should just fix it.

--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse
en duras y empinadas sillas / desprovistas, por cierto
de blandos atenuantes" (Patricio Vogel)

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:46 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

Yeah, this one is new as of commit 1e55e7d1755c; ISTM we should just fix it.

Agreed. Pushed Pavel's patch just now.

Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan

Hi,

Agreed. Pushed Pavel's patch just now.

Sorry, I didn't check it right away.
But it makes sense to backport to v14, where vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age was introduced.

--
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2021-Oct-28, Pavel Luzanov wrote:

Hi,

Agreed. Pushed Pavel's patch just now.

Sorry, I didn't check it right away.
But it makes sense to backport to v14, where vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age was introduced.

It is in 14.

Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Branch: master [00c61a74b] 2021-10-12 10:59:24 -0700
Branch: REL_14_STABLE [070c402b4] 2021-10-12 10:59:22 -0700

Doc: normalize vacuum_multixact_failsafe_age ID.

Author: Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>
Discussion: /messages/by-id/c71a3cfc-a267-3d9f-1b44-fbd668d0ab10@postgrespro.ru
Backpatch: 14-, where the failsafe was introduced.

--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:58 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

It is in 14.

Right. It won't be reflected on the website until 14.1 is released, though.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Hi,

It won't be reflected on the website until 14.1 is released, though.

Thank you! I had completely forgotten about that and looking for changes
on the website.

--
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company