Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 8:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Regarding the regression tests, ISTM we no longer need
> 'autovacuum-leader-before-indexes-processing' injection point since it
> currently tests that parallel workers update their delay parameters
> during the initialization (i.e., in parallel_vacuum_main()). In order
> to verify the behavior of workers updating their delay parameters
> while processing indexes, we would need another injection ponit to
> stop parallel workers, which seems overkill to me. So I removed it but
> the test still covers the propagation logic.
>
> Regarding the patch, I don't think it's a good idea to include
> bgworker_internals.h from reloptions.c:
>
> I'd leave the maximum value as 1024.

OK, let's leave it.

>
> I've attached patch and please check it. I think it's a good shape and
> I'm going to push it next Monday barrying objections.
>

Thank you for updating the patch!
All changes look good to me.

BTW, what about the "opt-in vs. opt-out style" issue?
As I wrote here [1], we can consider a new approach - allow the user to set the
autovacuum_max_workers reloption even if GUC parameter is zero.
I think it can satisfy all possible use cases.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJDiXggvE%3De%3D0%2BHnZ1XjwUcXYTb0dw77pRUts5gqY997YaxVjQ%40mail.gmail.com

--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov