On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 5:45 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2023-02-28 11:16:45 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:21 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > On 2023-02-27 23:11:53 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > > As far as I know there are not such GUC parameters in the core but > > > > there might be in third-party table AM and index AM extensions. > > > > > > We already reload in a pretty broad range of situations, so I'm not sure > > > there's a lot that could be unsafe that isn't already. > > > > > > > > > > Also, I'm concerned that allowing to change any GUC parameters during > > > > vacuum/analyze could be a foot-gun in the future. When modifying > > > > vacuum/analyze-related codes, we have to consider the case where any GUC > > > > parameters could be changed during vacuum/analyze. > > > > > > What kind of scenario are you thinking of? > > > > For example, I guess we will need to take care of changes of > > maintenance_work_mem. Currently we initialize the dead tuple space at > > the beginning of lazy vacuum, but perhaps we would need to > > enlarge/shrink it based on the new value? > > I don't think we need to do anything about that initially, just because the > config can be changed in a more granular way, doesn't mean we have to react to > every change for the current operation. >
+1. I also don't see the need to do anything for this case. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.