Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed Jun 18, 2025 at 5:03 AM -03, Daniil Davydov wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review! Please, see v5 patch :
> 1) GUC variable and field in autovacuum shmem are renamed
> 2) ParallelAutoVacuumReleaseWorkers call moved from parallel.c to
> vacuumparallel.c
> 3) max_parallel_autovacuum_workers is now PGC_SIGHUP parameter
> 4) Fix little bug (ParallelAutoVacuumReleaseWorkers in autovacuum.c:735)
>

Thanks for the new version!

The "autovacuum_max_parallel_workers" declared on guc_tables.c mention
that is capped by "max_worker_process":
+    {
+        {"autovacuum_max_parallel_workers", PGC_SIGHUP, VACUUM_AUTOVACUUM,
+            gettext_noop("Maximum number of parallel autovacuum workers, that can be taken from bgworkers pool."),
+            gettext_noop("This parameter is capped by \"max_worker_processes\" (not by
\"autovacuum_max_workers\"!)."),
+        },
+        &autovacuum_max_parallel_workers,
+        0, 0, MAX_BACKENDS,
+        check_autovacuum_max_parallel_workers, NULL, NULL
+    },


But the postgresql.conf.sample say that it is limited by
max_parallel_workers:
+#autovacuum_max_parallel_workers = 0    # disabled by default and limited by max_parallel_workers

IIUC the code, it cap by "max_worker_process", but Masahiko has mention
on [1] that it should be capped by max_parallel_workers.

---

We actually capping the autovacuum_max_parallel_workers by
max_worker_process-1, so we can't have 10 max_worker_process and 10
autovacuum_max_parallel_workers. Is that correct?
+bool
+check_autovacuum_max_parallel_workers(int *newval, void **extra,
+                                      GucSource source)
+{
+    if (*newval >= max_worker_processes)
+        return false;
+    return true;
+}

---

Locking unnecessary the AutovacuumLock if none if the if's is true can
cause some performance issue here? I don't think that this would be a
serious problem because this code will only be called if the
configuration file is changed during the autovacuum execution right? But
I could be wrong, so just sharing my thoughts on this (still learning
about [auto]vacuum code).

+
+/*
+ * Make sure that number of available parallel workers corresponds to the
+ * autovacuum_max_parallel_workers parameter (after it was changed).
+ */
+static void
+check_parallel_av_gucs(int prev_max_parallel_workers)
+{
+    LWLockAcquire(AutovacuumLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+
+    if (AutoVacuumShmem->av_available_parallel_workers >
+        autovacuum_max_parallel_workers)
+    {
+        Assert(prev_max_parallel_workers > autovacuum_max_parallel_workers);
+

Typo on "exeed"

+        /*
+         * Number of available workers must not exeed limit.
+         *
+         * Note, that if some parallel autovacuum workers are running at this
+         * moment, available workers number will not exeed limit after releasing
+         * them (see ParallelAutoVacuumReleaseWorkers).
+        */

---

I'm not seeing an usage of this macro?
+/*
+ * RelationGetParallelAutovacuumWorkers
+ *        Returns the relation's parallel_autovacuum_workers reloption setting.
+ *        Note multiple eval of argument!
+ */
+#define RelationGetParallelAutovacuumWorkers(relation, defaultpw) \
+    ((relation)->rd_options ? \
+     ((StdRdOptions *) (relation)->rd_options)->autovacuum.parallel_autovacuum_workers : \
+     (defaultpw))
+

---

Also pgindent is needed on some files.

---

I've made some tests and I can confirm that is working correctly for
what I can see. I think that would be to start include the documentation
changes, what do you think?

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoAxTkpkLtJDgrH9dXg_h%2ByzOZpOZj3B-4FjW1Mr4qEdbQ%40mail.gmail.com

--
Matheus Alcantara