Re: [PATCH] Doc fix for autovacuum_max_parallel_workers

From: Baji Shaik <baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc fix for autovacuum_max_parallel_workers
Date: 2026-10-15 21:01:05
Message-ID: CA+fm-ROGZOnBLGrCnLNjC9J5akzc+Vuzc1z321LOTvThi0+j9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 3:21 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> I agree. It should do something similar to [1] for consistency.
>

Thank you for the confirmation, Sami. v2 added. I followed the format of
other
autovacuum params which don't specifically point to the related storage
parameters.

Thanks,
Baji Shaik.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-doc-say-where-autovacuum_max_parallel_workers-can.patch application/octet-stream 1.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2026-10-15 21:14:26 Re: Parallel autovacuum: DROP DATABASE WITH (FORCE) fails on the parallel workers
Previous Message Manu 2026-10-15 20:53:30 Re: [PG19] Promotion hangs behind a backend blocked on a stuck client