Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting

From: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(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: 2024-04-12 22:17:44
Message-ID: 9CD7B92C-3330-4E79-A84E-95E99B1FD926@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> 1/ We should emit a log when autovacuum_workers is set higher than the max.

>> Hm. Maybe the autovacuum launcher could do that.

Would it be better to use a GUC check_hook that compares the
new value with the max allowed values and emits a WARNING ?

autovacuum_max_workers already has a check_autovacuum_max_workers
check_hook, which can be repurposed for this.

In the POC patch, this check_hook is kept as-is, which will no longer make sense.

>> 2/ should the name of the restart limit be "reserved_autovacuum_workers"?

>> That's kind-of what I had in mind, although I think we might want to avoid
>> the word "reserved" because it sounds a bit like reserved_connections
>> and superuser_reserved_connections

Yes, I agree. This can be confusing.

>> "autovacuum_max_slots" or
>> "autovacuum_max_worker_slots" might be worth considering, too.

"autovacuum_max_worker_slots" is probably the best option because
we should have "worker" in the name of the GUC.

Regards,

Sami

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-04-12 22:20:58 Re: CASE control block broken by a single line comment
Previous Message Andres Freund 2024-04-12 21:53:58 Re: Simplify documentation related to Windows builds