On 2025/06/04 4:32, Sami Imseih wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 10:57:11AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 05:25:40PM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote: >>>> I surely think adding log_autoanalyze_min_duration is simpler and >>>> shorter, but the reason I chose this GUC name is for consistency with >>>> other autovacuum parameters. Existing autovacuum parameters that have >>>> separate settings for vacuum and analyze operations follow the pattern >>>> autovacuum_{vacuum|analyze}_*. >>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/runtime-config-vacuum.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-AUTOVACUUM >>> >>> Right, but the GUCs that directly affect either vacuum or autovacuum >>> behaviour need the qualification (and then vacuum/analyze on top of it). >>> I think we have less constraints with the logging GUC and do not need to >>> mirror the behaviorial GUCs at all costs. But again, that is just my two >>> cents. >> >> I lean towards log_autovacuum_{vacuum|analyze}_min_duration. If >> log_autovacuum_min_duration didn't exist, that's probably the naming scheme >> we'd go with. However, I'm not sure we can get away with renaming >> log_autovacuum_min_duration. Presumably we'd need to at least keep it >> around as a backward-compatibility GUC, and its behavior would probably >> change, too > > I think deprecating a GUC like log_autovacuum_min_duration would be quite > difficult.
Also deprecating the log_autovacuum_min_duration reloption might be tricky. If we remove support for it in v19, how should pg_dump handle tables with this option set from older versions? Should it translate it into both log_autovacuum_vacuum_min_duration and log_autovacuum_analyze_min_duration during dump? Would pg_upgrade run into the same issue?
