On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 5:59 AM Sami Imseih <samims...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think it would more make > > sense to maintain the existing autovacuum_max_workers parameter while > > introducing a new parameter that would either control the maximum > > number of parallel vacuum workers per autovacuum worker or set a > > system-wide cap on the total number of parallel vacuum workers. > > +1, and would it make sense for parallel workers to come from > max_parallel_maintenance_workers? This is capped by > max_parallel_workers and max_worker_processes, so increasing > the defaults for all 3 will be needed as well.
I may be wrong, but the `max_parallel_maintenance_workers` parameter is only used for commands that are explicitly run by the user. We already have `autovacuum_max_workers` and I think that code will be more consistent, if we adapt this particular parameter (perhaps with the addition of a new one, as I wrote in the previous letter). -- Best regards, Daniil Davydov
