Horton
Menu

Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum

Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>, Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-04-01T21:43:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 1:55 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Overall, the results show no noticeable overhead from the polling approach.

Great news! Thank you for these measurements!

BTW, I caught myself thinking that Tom Lane and maybe some other people might
not like our parameter propagation logic. We are not building any new
capability, but supplying an utilitarian solution for a single feature.
Perhaps someone will not consider this a good way to develop new features.

However, I don't think that this is something bad. We have a pretty simple
logic which does not interfere with some other infrastructure. On the other
hand, maybe I am thinking in terms of bigtech product development, where
results (but not the design) are often the most important thing.

--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow autovacuum to use parallel vacuum workers.

  2. Add parallel vacuum worker usage to VACUUM (VERBOSE) and autovacuum logs.

  3. doc: Put new options in consistent order on man pages