> On 5 Apr 2023, at 22:19, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> The bigger problem seems to
> be everything else -- the way that tuning autovacuum_max_workers kinda
> makes sense (it shouldn't be an interesting tunable)
Not to derail this thread, and pre-empt a thread where this can be discussed in
its own context, but isn't that kind of the main problem? Tuning autovacuum is
really complicated and one of the parameters that I think universally seem to
make sense to users is just autovacuum_max_workers. I agree that it doesn't do
what most think it should, but a quick skim of the name and docs can probably
lead to a lot of folks trying to use it as hammer.
--
Daniel Gustafsson