| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers |
| Date: | 2020-09-21 07:16:47 |
| Message-ID: | 2d2db0c5-88b1-deab-087f-3ab25ccc09cc@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-21 05:48, Amit Kapila wrote:
> What according to you should be the behavior here and how will it be
> better than current?
I think if I write VACUUM (PARALLEL 5), it should use up to 5 workers
(up to the number of indexes), even if max_parallel_maintenance_workers
is 2.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-09-21 08:08:01 | Re: Yet another fast GiST build |
| Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2020-09-21 07:05:17 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |