Re: doc: fix pg_stat_autovacuum_scores threshold wording

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 15:48:07
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0sndnZhap8f_BNxTi04nFTeA9UV6akp-Jy0mbVg2qu5cQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I guess that may be how the current wording came from. But it seems a bit indirect to describe it that way, because the weight itself does not determine if autovacuum would vacuum or analyze the table.
>
> Rewriting the doc more broadly would be a larger change. This small patch is only meant to avoid the confusion shown by the test earlier, where the score is equal to the weight but do_vacuum is false.

Hi,

Thanks for reporting. I took a look and agree with your doc changes.
do_vacuum/do_analyze will not be true for cases where the
individual component scores are less than or equal to the weight.

The patch LGTM

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2026-06-25 16:29:29 Re: [PATCH] Check dead heap items before marking them unused
Previous Message Baji Shaik 2026-06-25 15:44:54 Re: [PATCH] COPY TO FORMAT json: respect column list order