Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers
Date: 2020-09-21 07:16:47
Message-ID: 2d2db0c5-88b1-deab-087f-3ab25ccc09cc@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-09-21 05:48, Amit Kapila wrote:
> What according to you should be the behavior here and how will it be
> better than current?

I think if I write VACUUM (PARALLEL 5), it should use up to 5 workers
(up to the number of indexes), even if max_parallel_maintenance_workers
is 2.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2020-09-21 08:08:01 Re: Yet another fast GiST build
Previous Message Ajin Cherian 2020-09-21 07:05:17 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions