> I was also looking at this thread over the past few days and I agree that this
> seems too invasive for the issue at hand given where we are in the cycle.
I had the same issue, I tried to figure out something better but
couldn't. I still don't have a better solution. I have a somewhat
simpler version of v2, but the alternative WIP patch overall looks
better to me.
I attached an updated version of that with the tests integrated, and a
few code changes related to that (new injection points and one
simplification in parallel_vacuum_refresh_cost_params), so it's easier
to test.
> What I am less sure about is the fix for the second issue in the attached WIP patch, which needs any leader waiting
forits workers to be woken up after the cost limit is rebalanced. I haven't found a better one yet.
Any alternative solution seems more complex to me, with no clear advantage.
