On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 11:21, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
Agreed. But the same is true for parallel REINDEX? It's also a maintenance operation. In any case, the thing would get more complex if lazy vacuum or vacuum full were to support parallel operation on table scan in the future. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
