Hi, On 2025-09-17 13:25:11 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I believe the reason why parallelism is disabled in autovacuum is that > we want autovacuum to be a background process, with minimal disruption > to user workload. It probably wouldn't be that hard to allow autovacuum > to do parallel stuff, but it feels similar to adding autovacuum workers. > That's rarely the solution, without increasing the cost limit.
I continue to find this argument extremely unconvincing. It's very common for autovacuum to be continuously be busy with the one large table that has a bunch of indexes. Vacuuming that one table is what prevents the freeze horizon to move forward / prevents getting out of anti-wraparound territory in time. Greetings, Andres Freund
