| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: doc: fix pg_stat_autovacuum_scores threshold wording |
| Date: | 2026-06-25 03:45:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20260625.124519.465561960978243461.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
At Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:44:23 +0800, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> While testing “[d7965d65f] Add rudimentary table prioritization to autovacuum”, I noticed a small doc issue.
>
> In monitoring.sgml, it states:
> ```
> <row>
> <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
> <structfield>vacuum_score</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
> </para>
> <para>
> Vacuum component score. Scores greater than or equal to
> <xref linkend="guc-autovacuum-vacuum-score-weight"/> indicate that
> autovacuum would vacuum the table (unless autovacuum is disabled).
> </para></entry>
> </row>
> ```
If I understand this correctly, aren't the *_score_weight settings
used to prioritize candidate tables, rather than to determine whether
a table needs vacuuming or analyzing in the first place?
Regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-06-25 03:56:02 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2026-06-25 03:31:29 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |