From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting |
Date: | 2024-04-12 22:17:44 |
Message-ID: | 9CD7B92C-3330-4E79-A84E-95E99B1FD926@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> 1/ We should emit a log when autovacuum_workers is set higher than the max.
>> Hm. Maybe the autovacuum launcher could do that.
Would it be better to use a GUC check_hook that compares the
new value with the max allowed values and emits a WARNING ?
autovacuum_max_workers already has a check_autovacuum_max_workers
check_hook, which can be repurposed for this.
In the POC patch, this check_hook is kept as-is, which will no longer make sense.
>> 2/ should the name of the restart limit be "reserved_autovacuum_workers"?
>> That's kind-of what I had in mind, although I think we might want to avoid
>> the word "reserved" because it sounds a bit like reserved_connections
>> and superuser_reserved_connections
Yes, I agree. This can be confusing.
>> "autovacuum_max_slots" or
>> "autovacuum_max_worker_slots" might be worth considering, too.
"autovacuum_max_worker_slots" is probably the best option because
we should have "worker" in the name of the GUC.
Regards,
Sami
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-12 22:20:58 | Re: CASE control block broken by a single line comment |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-12 21:53:58 | Re: Simplify documentation related to Windows builds |