Re: doc: fix pg_stat_autovacuum_scores threshold wording

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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