| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum: automatically propagate updated parameters |
| Date: | 2026-08-27 21:15:00 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACWvmv0Pbe2siJVUYG1ZRQMpG_-AXYRik68ThHW6jaSqHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:57 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> >> we can stop the
> >> second worker at the injection point "vacuum-truncate-enabled" for
> >> example. While it works and we can reduce the filler table size, it
> >> would add an unclear dependency as vacuum-truncate-enabled is not
> >> related to parallel autovacuum.
> >
> > I added a new injection point and stopped it there in v3. If you think
> > that's unnecessary, we can replace it to vacuum-truncate-enabled in
> > the test and remove the injection point, and it works the same way.
> > This just seemed cleaner to me.
>
> I prefer this approach, injection points are cheap enough that we don't need to
> reuse and cause undefined dependencies. I'll try to get this applied later today.
+1, a separate injection point makes sense here. The attached v3 patch
looks good to me. pgindent and tests are happy. This needs to be
backpatched to PG19.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Rachitskiy | 2026-08-27 21:20:50 | Re: BUG #19498: Anonymous ROW() field expansion fails after scalar subquery relay |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2026-08-27 20:40:56 | Re: MERGE/SPLIT PARTITIONS issues/questions |