Message-ID: <e3e40261-a4c4-f914-bfd3-509e0febce02@adv-solutions.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 19:45:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Automatically sizing the IO worker pool
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CA+hUKG+m4xV0LMoH2c=oRAdEXuCnh+tGBTWa7uFeFMGgTLAw+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jose Luis Tallon <jltallon@adv-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKG+m4xV0LMoH2c=oRAdEXuCnh+tGBTWa7uFeFMGgTLAw+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e3e40261-a4c4-f914-bfd3-509e0febce02%40adv-solutions.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 12/4/25 18:59, Thomas Munro wrote:
> It's hard to know how to set io_workers=3.

Hmmm.... enable the below behaviour if "io_workers=auto" (default) ?

Sometimes being able to set this kind of parameters manually helps 
tremendously with specific workloads... :S

> [snip]
> Here's a patch to replace that GUC with:
>
>        io_min_workers=1
>        io_max_workers=8
>        io_worker_idle_timeout=60s
>        io_worker_launch_interval=500ms

Great as defaults / backwards compat with io_workers=auto. Sounds more 
user-friendly to me, at least....

> [snip]
>
> Ideas, testing, flames etc welcome.

Logic seems sound, if a bit daunting for inexperienced users --- well, 
maybe just a bit more than it is now, but ISTM evolution should try and 
flatten novices' learning curve, right?


Just .02€, though.


Thanks,

-- 
Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted to it.