Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum

On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 1:38 AM Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 8:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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.

Thank you! Pushed.

> 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.

I've just replied to the email. Please check it[1].

Regards,

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoDEfe5-tYSqa%3DMGLP5TX5QH2irVZVyULCeTQj0J92Hp1A%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com