> On 5 Apr 2023, at 22:19, Peter Geoghegan <p...@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
