| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum: automatically propagate updated parameters |
| Date: | 2026-08-24 22:16:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3AA822D2-6F9F-4F53-A559-08E4FBA99ED3@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> On 25 Aug 2026, at 00:06, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I understand that having a test for this in the first place could have
>> helped catch this issue. However, I don't see a strong point in having
>> one now. Can we test it manually and get the fix alone?
>
> I mainly added the testcase as a repro, I am not sure how useful it is
> as an actual test case. But if we want to keep it, I can certainly
> reduce it.
I think there is value in having a test, especially if we can roll it into 001
as quick step.
>> How about propagating the params to parallel workers launched by
>> autovacuum right after updating cost limits in
>> AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit()?
>
> That could work too, I used the current location because most of the
> parallel related things, including the other call to
> parallel_vacuum_propagate_shared_delay_params is in vacuum.c, not in
> autovacuum.c
There is also strong value in not changing things too drastic at this point in
the cycle.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2026-08-24 22:16:51 | Re: MERGE/SPLIT PARTITIONS issues/questions |
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-08-24 22:06:33 | Re: autovacuum: automatically propagate updated parameters |