On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 9:25 AM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > To make the behavior of parallel vacuum more consistent with other > parallel maintenance commands (i.g., only parallel INDEX CREATE for > now), as a second idea, can we make use of parallel_workers reloption > in parallel vacuum case as well?
That seems like a terrible idea to me. I don't see why the number of workers that some user thinks should be used to perform a scan on the table as part of the query should be the same as the number of workers that should be used for a maintenance operation. We get in trouble every time we try to reuse a setting for an unrelated purpose. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
