| 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: | 2020-09-19 10:59:02 |
| Message-ID: | 5a8b1b58-30b6-cd9a-5a37-75f1da063429@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-19 11:37, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think we can change the documentation for parallel option to explain
> it better. How about: "Perform index vacuum and index cleanup phases
> of VACUUM in parallel using integer background workers (for the
> details of each vacuum phase, please refer to Table 27.37). The number
> of workers is determined based on the number of indexes on the
> relation that support parallel vacuum operation which is limited by
> number of workers specified with PARALLEL option if any which is
> further limited by max_parallel_maintenance_workers." instead of what
> is currently there?
I think the implemented behavior is wrong. The VACUUM PARALLEL option
should override the max_parallel_maintenance_worker setting.
Otherwise, what's the point of the command option?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-19 11:24:44 | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-19 09:37:47 | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |