Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers
Date
Msg-id 2d2db0c5-88b1-deab-087f-3ab25ccc09cc@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ajin Cherian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Yet another fast GiST build