Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority
Date: 2026-04-08 19:21:38
Message-ID: 3101163.1775676098@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 02:53:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Aside from this problem, the elog's that
>> relation_needs_vacanalyze emits seem 100% inappropriate and misleading
>> when it's being called from the view.

> FWIW that elog() shouldn't be emitting anything from the view, unless
> something is broken.

[ looks again... ] Oh, you mean because pg_stat_get_autovacuum_scores
passes 0 for elevel instead of any of the valid elevel constants.
Can you say "undocumented cowboy hack"? I'd be happier if we added
something like "#define LOG_NEVER 0 /* Never emit this message */"
to elog.h and used that.

>> 2. Add a "bool *should_free" parameter, like we have in tuplestores
>> and some other places. It's on the caller to pfree if should_free
>> gets set, but since we'd have to touch every caller, we'd not miss
>> any.

> This sounds most similar to the "bool *may_free" idea that Andres just
> posted. IIUC the idea is that callers can free the result if they want,
> but they aren't required to do so.

Hmm, yeah I suppose a caller that doesn't care about leakage could
skip the pfree. But are there really any of those? The complaint
that prompted 02502c1bc concerned databases with many many thousands
of relations.

I now realize that what you said upthread about caching the results
might be a bigger problem, ie if the pgstats code does retain all
these values then we'd have a memory bloat problem there. Maybe
we need a more aggressive API change that includes a way to specify
"don't cache this result".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lukas Fittl 2026-04-08 19:25:54 Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2026-04-08 19:18:34 Re: updates for handling optional argument in system functions