On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 1:38 AM Daniil Davydov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 8:12 AM Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Regarding the regression tests, ISTM we no longer need > > 'autovacuum-leader-before-indexes-processing' injection point since it > > currently tests that parallel workers update their delay parameters > > during the initialization (i.e., in parallel_vacuum_main()). In order > > to verify the behavior of workers updating their delay parameters > > while processing indexes, we would need another injection ponit to > > stop parallel workers, which seems overkill to me. So I removed it but > > the test still covers the propagation logic. > > > > Regarding the patch, I don't think it's a good idea to include > > bgworker_internals.h from reloptions.c: > > > > I'd leave the maximum value as 1024. > > OK, let's leave it. > > > > > I've attached patch and please check it. I think it's a good shape and > > I'm going to push it next Monday barrying objections. > > > > Thank you for updating the patch! > All changes look good to me.
Thank you! Pushed. > BTW, what about the "opt-in vs. opt-out style" issue? > As I wrote here [1], we can consider a new approach - allow the user to set > the > autovacuum_max_workers reloption even if GUC parameter is zero. > I think it can satisfy all possible use cases. I've just replied to the email. Please check it[1]. Regards, [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoDEfe5-tYSqa%3DMGLP5TX5QH2irVZVyULCeTQj0J92Hp1A%40mail.gmail.com -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
