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>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD21AoBcoA-i-pJ_=y+jg14R8_QaJA1iwktCnu5i-C=yXDFPdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 17:59:46 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAA5RZ0vanNmUDoTykY618+rzHmthQUbsUsWJcr9R1T9E2FH9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@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/CAA5RZ0vanNmUDoTykY618%2BrzHmthQUbsUsWJcr9R1T9E2FH9sQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> I think it would more make
> sense to maintain the existing autovacuum_max_workers parameter while
> introducing a new parameter that would either control the maximum
> number of parallel vacuum workers per autovacuum worker or set a
> system-wide cap on the total number of parallel vacuum workers.

+1, and would it make sense for parallel workers to come from
max_parallel_maintenance_workers? This is capped by
max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, so increasing
the defaults for all 3 will be needed as well.


--
Sami