On 2026-Sep-10, Chao Li wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2026, at 11:21, shihao zhong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Done in v2, through the DSM segment the worker already attaches to. I think this is pretty reasonable. > Auto-vacuum explicitly overrides all four settable session timeouts > (statement_timeout, transaction_timeout, lock_timeout, and > idle_in_transaction_session_timeout) to zero, while this worker only > handles the latter two. I understand that statement_timeout and > idle_in_transaction_session_timeout are probably never armed by this > worker, so functionally they may not need special handling. Hmm, but REPACK is not autovacuum; it's quite different in fact, in that REPACK is intended to always be invoked manually, while autovacuum runs on its own. On the other hand, because REPACK refuses to run in a transaction block, transaction_timeout and idle_in_transaction_session_timeout don't really apply, so I'm not seeing the potential for problems. > My concern is that the inconsistency might lead to confusion to future > readers. Does it make sense to either remove those two from > auto-vacuum worker or set them to repack worker as well? I decidedly don't want to touch autovacuum. Although I'm not sure I see the reason why the transaction-based timeouts are relevant for autovacuum. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
