Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum

On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 5:59 AM Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 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.

I may be wrong, but the `max_parallel_maintenance_workers` parameter
is only used for commands that are explicitly run by the user. We
already have `autovacuum_max_workers` and I think that code will be
more consistent, if we adapt this particular parameter (perhaps with
the addition of a new one, as I wrote in the previous letter).

--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov