| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting | 
| Date: | 2025-01-06 23:20:22 | 
| Message-ID: | Z3xlNmC3qtwf1lz1@nathan | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 05:36:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> How about trying the higher setting first in initdb? On any sane system
>> that won't cost anything because it'll succeed with the higher value.
> 
> That might be a good compromise.
+1, I like the idea.
> You'd have to think about how
> it should interact with initdb's probes for workable values of
> max_connections.  My first thought about that is to have initdb
> set autovacuum_worker_slots to max_connections / 8 or thereabouts
> as it works down the list of max_connections values to try.  Or
> you could do something more complicated, but I don't see a reason
> to make it too complex.
My first instinct was just to set it to the lowest default we'd consider
during the max_connections tests (which I'm assuming is 3 due to the
current default for autovacuum_max_workers).  That way, the max_connections
default won't change from version to version on affected systems, but you
might get some extra autovacuum slots.
-- 
nathan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size | 
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Lower-default-value-of-autovacuum_worker_slots-in.patch | text/plain | 4.7 KB | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-06 23:36:43 | Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-06 22:46:19 | Re: Alias of VALUES RTE in explain plan |