| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Date: | 2020-10-05 02:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYiP8ehDUCVf1=eeEUQOgJp55jK2YsvsC9CVXnONb9tXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:25 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> To make the behavior of parallel vacuum more consistent with other
> parallel maintenance commands (i.g., only parallel INDEX CREATE for
> now), as a second idea, can we make use of parallel_workers reloption
> in parallel vacuum case as well?
That seems like a terrible idea to me. I don't see why the number of
workers that some user thinks should be used to perform a scan on the
table as part of the query should be the same as the number of workers
that should be used for a maintenance operation. We get in trouble
every time we try to reuse a setting for an unrelated purpose.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-05 02:41:02 | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-10-05 02:19:41 | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |