Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum

Hi,

I started to review this patch set again, and it needed rebasing, so I
went ahead and did that.

I also have some comments:

#1
In AutoVacuumReserveParallelWorkers()
I think here we should assert:

```
Assert(nworkers <= AutoVacuumShmem->av_freeParallelWorkers);
```
prior to:
```
+ AutoVacuumShmem->av_freeParallelWorkers -= nworkers;
```

We are capping nworkers earlier in parallel_vacuum_compute_workers()

```
/* Cap by GUC variable */
parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers, max_workers);
```

so the assert will safe-guard against someone making a faulty change
in parallel_vacuum_compute_workers()

#2
In
parallel_vacuum_process_all_indexes()

```
+ /*
+ * Reserve workers in autovacuum global state. Note, that we
may be given
+ * fewer workers than we requested.
+ */
+ if (AmAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() && nworkers > 0)
+ nworkers = AutoVacuumReserveParallelWorkers(nworkers);
```

nworkers has a double meaning. The return value of
AutoVacuumReserveParallelWorkers
is nreserved. I think this should be

```
nreserved = AutoVacuumReserveParallelWorkers(nworkers);
```

and nreserved becomes the authoritative value for the number of parallel
workers after that point.

#3
I noticed in the logging:

```
2025-11-20 18:44:09.252 UTC [36787] LOG: automatic vacuum of table
"test.public.t": index scans: 0
workers usage statistics for all of index scans : launched in
total = 3, planned in total = 3
pages: 0 removed, 503306 remain, 14442 scanned (2.87% of
total), 0 eagerly scanned
tuples: 101622 removed, 7557074 remain, 0 are dead but not yet removable
removable cutoff: 1711, which was 1 XIDs old when operation ended
frozen: 4793 pages from table (0.95% of total) had 98303 tuples frozen
visibility map: 4822 pages set all-visible, 4745 pages set
all-frozen (0 were all-visible)
index scan bypassed: 8884 pages from table (1.77% of total)
have 195512 dead item identifiers
```

that even though index scan was bypased, we still launched parallel
workers. I didn't dig deep into this,
but that looks wrong. what do you think?

#4
instead of:

"workers usage statistics for all of index scans : launched in total =
0, planned in total = 0"

how about:

"parallel index scan : workers planned = 0, workers launched = 0"

also log this after the "index scan needed:" line; so it looks like
this. What do you think>

```
index scan needed: 13211 pages from table (2.63% of total) had
289482 dead item identifiers removed
parallel index scan : workers planned = 0, workers launched = 0
index "t_pkey": pages: 25234 in total, 0 newly deleted, 0 currently
deleted, 0 reusable
index "t_c1_idx": pages: 10219 in total, 0 newly deleted, 0
currently deleted, 0 reusable
```

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)