> On 27 Aug 2026, at 23:15, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:57 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>>
>>>> we can stop the
>>>> second worker at the injection point "vacuum-truncate-enabled" for
>>>> example. While it works and we can reduce the filler table size, it
>>>> would add an unclear dependency as vacuum-truncate-enabled is not
>>>> related to parallel autovacuum.
>>>
>>> I added a new injection point and stopped it there in v3. If you think
>>> that's unnecessary, we can replace it to vacuum-truncate-enabled in
>>> the test and remove the injection point, and it works the same way.
>>> This just seemed cleaner to me.
>>
>> I prefer this approach, injection points are cheap enough that we don't need to
>> reuse and cause undefined dependencies. I'll try to get this applied later today.
>
> +1, a separate injection point makes sense here. The attached v3 patch
> looks good to me. pgindent and tests are happy. This needs to be
> backpatched to PG19.
Thanks for review, I have it scheduled for commit and backpatch tomorrow morning.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
