Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum
Date: 2025-05-02 22:59:46
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0vanNmUDoTykY618+rzHmthQUbsUsWJcr9R1T9E2FH9sQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I think it would more make
> sense to maintain the existing autovacuum_max_workers parameter while
> introducing a new parameter that would either control the maximum
> number of parallel vacuum workers per autovacuum worker or set a
> system-wide cap on the total number of parallel vacuum workers.

+1, and would it make sense for parallel workers to come from
max_parallel_maintenance_workers? This is capped by
max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, so increasing
the defaults for all 3 will be needed as well.

--
Sami

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2025-05-02 23:46:29 Re: PG 18 release notes draft committed
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-05-02 22:52:49 Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations