| 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 22:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+fm-RP1JXxUwB2=g56FHuD=3tXGLwPt+oNxjt1acROcXcC_NA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 4:21 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I had this wording in mind:
>
> "This parameter can only be set in the <filename>postgresql.conf</filename>
> file or on the server command line; but the setting can be overridden for
> individual tables by changing the
> <link linkend="reloption-autovacuum-parallel-workers">corresponding table
> storage parameter</link>."
>
> That seems more helpful and matches [1], because it points to the specific
> table storage parameter. In this case the reloption is named
> autovacuum_parallel_workers while the GUC is
> autovacuum_max_parallel_workers,
> so a link makes that clearer.
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/19/runtime-config-vacuum.html#GUC-VACUUM-MAX-EAGER-FREEZE-FAILURE-RATE
yeah, I had the same patch but thought to match with the other set of
params, however,
your point makes sense. v3 updated with the recommendation. Thank you very
much.
Thanks,
Baji Shaik.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-doc-say-where-autovacuum_max_parallel_workers-can.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-10-15 22:04:35 | Re: Showing "Table Block Fetches" in EXPLAIN ANALYZE for index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-10-15 22:00:16 | Re: Unlogged materialized views |