MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CACG=ezZOrNsuLoETLD1gAswZMuH2nGGq7Ogcc0QOE5hhWaw=cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoCdx5ZNS_cO7bYz1Zfb+Kw1kuJV2wtewrz7T1pPpjcWGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXgi6ZQOoSEqj9RyZMEh+HHBtmW0+PHD85UNPtKch8ubvdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoBcoA-i-pJ_=y+jg14R8_QaJA1iwktCnu5i-C=yXDFPdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXgjnUdE6Sk4M0unmT+9dULyFAxcum2txQKpWTuo4uQ_oXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoBTZdVR93JBo620B=MX-K8cdm3VRbjrBr_Vcpngk3AjVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0vfBg=c_0Sa1Tpxv8tueeBk8C5qTf9TrxKBbXUqPc99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoBgvUeWS8ZsXBahA1XdYayK6DJ6dx49d6Xpii-iH+Hrwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0vF+Lr-jU1LAZWTGUjboUETk8oLvaNBbA5ozX6dau+how@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXggueLSGMNRmLshbmFRfbo4jzks0W8bLDfUSRZ-61fPVEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFY6G8cJ=DRTX75pOGerH6sk39dRt+7MSH+y_qppDdhPs=qdQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXgg1t6wk9NjyMUTm1iKqM9GtdQ_wrEchBtz3xjWBZM8W8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAC0=Xi38RQcAO4A+vdmoXToZMoHfbS=KLT49fAOTH_gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXgiD+AZKhJSn-FSRVQxtDLmJd95wDu4wtKniQF5==1JcjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAM8KsqNhrZYJuf7odvxcTC0TumXazJc-r_wC5KnDFDPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXghbcOC9OOj3ampxuyqXH0geggnosnrYUHGygkpss-RtxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAPnq0vrcGgeN++r1GoL8Kza7jaGL=TNzuBn6+MkR=rUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXghmsbTmnm--9B5bbuZXa1OL7SZ0HYppX3tx9XsdwfJBhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DB3C67FCRLOO.1R5NLYCNEA6BF@gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXgiYiX+azuR76DcVx8fZn57m_4v6cB14-GW34mWa=qudFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoDtPpkkQ_h1yf4oTx1qn4SRdTeVY3qs+9J07fYqa_4Gww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXgi7KB7wSQ=Ux=ngdaCvJnJ5x-ehvTyiuZez+5uKHtV6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoCcHKKXsr9Oh736ejckqqS1i430xGEyJ=JP5OL0ExyP1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJDiXghaFT_1sSv3q8mjyZ_RLZDgiogg0mWRvLxSWvkUi2CcLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJDiXghaFT_1sSv3q8mjyZ_RLZDgiogg0mWRvLxSWvkUi2CcLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:40:22 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAA5RZ0u63W41OmcEO+HLs4CSo-Sd3J+Q-4=04iud8V=xX4iUrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum
To: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
 Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>,
	Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>,
 Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0u63W41OmcEO%2BHLs4CSo-Sd3J%2BQ-4%3D04iud8V%3DxX4iUrA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for the patches!

I have only reviewed the v8-0001-Parallel-index-autovacuum.patch so far and
have a few comments from my initial pass.

1/ Please run pgindent.

2/ Documentation is missing. There may be more, but here are the places I
found that likely need updates for the new behavior, reloptions, GUC, etc.
Including docs in the patch early would help clarify expected behavior.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/routine-vacuuming.html#VACUUM-BASICS
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/routine-vacuuming.html#AUTOVACUUM
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-autovacuum.html
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-altertable.html
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-WORKER-PROCESSES
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-MAX-PARALLEL-MAINTENANCE-WORKERS

One thing I am unclear on is the interaction between max_worker_processes,
max_parallel_workers, and max_parallel_maintenance_workers. For example, does
the following change mean that manual VACUUM PARALLEL is no longer capped by
max_parallel_maintenance_workers?

@@ -597,8 +614,8 @@ parallel_vacuum_compute_workers(Relation *indrels,
int nindexes, int nrequested,
        parallel_workers = (nrequested > 0) ?
                Min(nrequested, nindexes_parallel) : nindexes_parallel;

-       /* Cap by max_parallel_maintenance_workers */
-       parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers,
max_parallel_maintenance_workers);
+       /* Cap by GUC variable */
+       parallel_workers = Min(parallel_workers, max_parallel_workers);


3/ Shouldn't this be "max_parallel_workers" instead of "bgworkers pool" ?

+                       "autovacuum_parallel_workers",
+                       "Maximum number of parallel autovacuum workers
that can be taken from bgworkers pool for processing this table. "

4/ The comment "When parallel autovacuum worker die" suggests an abnormal
exit. "Terminates" seems clearer, since this applies to both normal and
abnormal exits.

instead of:
+ * When parallel autovacuum worker die,

how about this:
* When parallel autovacuum worker terminates,


5/ Any reason AutoVacuumReleaseParallelWorkers cannot be called before
DestroyParallelContext?

+       nlaunched_workers = pvs->pcxt->nworkers_launched; /* remember
this value */
        DestroyParallelContext(pvs->pcxt);
+
+       /* Release all launched (i.e. reserved) parallel autovacuum workers. */
+       if (AmAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
+               AutoVacuumReleaseParallelWorkers(nlaunched_workers);


6/ Also, would it be cleaner to move AmAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() inside
AutoVacuumReleaseParallelWorkers()?

if (!AmAutoVacuumWorkerProcess())
        return;

7/ It looks like the psql tab completion for autovacuum_parallel_workers is
missing:

test=# alter table t set (autovacuum_
autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor
autovacuum_analyze_threshold
autovacuum_enabled
autovacuum_freeze_max_age
autovacuum_freeze_min_age
autovacuum_freeze_table_age
autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age
autovacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age
autovacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay
autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit
autovacuum_vacuum_insert_scale_factor
autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold
autovacuum_vacuum_max_threshold
autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor
autovacuum_vacuum_threshold

--

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)