> 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
