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>
 <CAA5RZ0vanNmUDoTykY618+rzHmthQUbsUsWJcr9R1T9E2FH9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA5RZ0vanNmUDoTykY618+rzHmthQUbsUsWJcr9R1T9E2FH9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 15:17:49 +0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAJDiXgjjGNExq79h83wHwBnp5jGxnkSUnMtGHZVUHm4wgV=Qsg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJDiXgjjGNExq79h83wHwBnp5jGxnkSUnMtGHZVUHm4wgV%3DQsg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 5:59=E2=80=AFAM Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>
> > 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.

I may be wrong, but the `max_parallel_maintenance_workers` parameter
is only used for commands that are explicitly run by the user. We
already have `autovacuum_max_workers` and I think that code will be
more consistent, if we adapt this particular parameter (perhaps with
the addition of a new one, as I wrote in the previous letter).

--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov