| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting |
| Date: | 2024-04-11 19:24:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20240411192423.GB2005410@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:37:23PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> My concern with this approach is that other background workers could use up
>> all the slots and prevent autovacuum workers from starting
>
> That's a good point, the current settings do not guarantee that you
> get a worker for the purpose if none are available,
> i.e. max_parallel_workers_per_gather, you may have 2 workers planned
> and 0 launched.
>
>> unless of
>> course we reserve autovacuum_max_workers slots for _only_ autovacuum
>> workers. I'm not sure if we want to get these parameters tangled up like
>> this, though...
>
> This will be confusing to describe and we will be reserving autovac workers
> implicitly, rather than explicitly with a new GUC.
Yeah, that's probably a good reason to give autovacuum its own worker pool.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-11 19:24:28 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-04-11 19:21:49 | Re: SET ROLE documentation improvement |