> On 25 Aug 2026, at 00:06, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand that having a test for this in the first place could have
>> helped catch this issue. However, I don't see a strong point in having
>> one now. Can we test it manually and get the fix alone?
>
> I mainly added the testcase as a repro, I am not sure how useful it is
> as an actual test case. But if we want to keep it, I can certainly
> reduce it.
I think there is value in having a test, especially if we can roll it into 001
as quick step.
>> How about propagating the params to parallel workers launched by
>> autovacuum right after updating cost limits in
>> AutoVacuumUpdateCostLimit()?
>
> That could work too, I used the current location because most of the
> parallel related things, including the other call to
> parallel_vacuum_propagate_shared_delay_params is in vacuum.c, not in
> autovacuum.c
There is also strong value in not changing things too drastic at this point in
the cycle.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
