Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Date
Msg-id YWOKbkkimrLnriJ8@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:23:32AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:13 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> * PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND.  Should be innocuous I think, since the
>> "parent" process already has this flag and thus shouldn't be cancelled.
>
> Currently, we don't support parallel vacuum for autovacuum. So
> parallel workers for vacuum don't have these two flags.

That's something that should IMO be marked in the code as a comment as
something to worry about once/if someone begins playing with parallel
autovacuum.  If the change involving autovacuum is simple, I see no
reason to not add this part now, though.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))"
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))"