| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel autovacuum: Propagate track_cost_delay_timing to parallel workers |
| Date: | 2026-09-28 23:48:59 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoBC+EGFwobZmuHDZKtMH72=EB1n8ehPASknaPs039-jqw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 2:34 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bharath,
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> > 1/ At the end of parallel_vacuum_main(), do we need to gate the
> > reporting of any remaining delay time on the accumulated delay time
> > variable rather than on the GUC?
>
> track_cost_delay_timing gates delay timing reporting elsewhere, so we should not
> deviate from that. If the GUC is off by then, we should not accumulate
> any timing
> anyhow, even if parallel_vacuum_worker_delay_ns > 0
IIUC the remaining parallel_vacuum_worker_delay_ns was accumulated
when the track_cost_delay_timing was enabled. Shouldn't we report it
as well?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2026-09-29 00:00:00 | Re: create table like including storage parameter |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-09-28 23:45:21 | Re: parallel autovacuum: Propagate track_cost_delay_timing to parallel workers |