| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum: automatically propagate updated parameters |
| Date: | 2026-08-24 22:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFMkwTr69Fc7Z86x4dzQUWGpXPjDu_GE_nx4ZXxdMdda2Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> I understand that having a test for this in the first place could have
> helped catch this issue. However, I don't see a strong point in having
> one now. Can we test it manually and get the fix alone?
I mainly added the testcase as a repro, I am not sure how useful it is
as an actual test case. But if we want to keep it, I can certainly
reduce it.
> How about propagating the params to parallel workers launched by
> autovacuum right after updating cost limits in
> AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit()?
That could work too, I used the current location because most of the
parallel related things, including the other call to
parallel_vacuum_propagate_shared_delay_params is in vacuum.c, not in
autovacuum.c
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2026-08-24 22:16:19 | Re: autovacuum: automatically propagate updated parameters |
| Previous Message | Manuel Reyes Bravo | 2026-08-24 19:42:59 | Re: BUG #19638: Planner chooses an index-only scan for an index AM without amcanreturn, and execution fails |