> My concern with this approach is that other background workers could use up
> all the slots and prevent autovacuum workers from starting
That's a good point, the current settings do not guarantee that you
get a worker for the purpose if none are available,
i.e. max_parallel_workers_per_gather, you may have 2 workers planned
and 0 launched.
> unless of
> course we reserve autovacuum_max_workers slots for _only_ autovacuum
> workers. I'm not sure if we want to get these parameters tangled up like
> this, though...
This will be confusing to describe and we will be reserving autovac workers
implicitly, rather than explicitly with a new GUC.
Regards,
Sami