Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority
Date: 2026-04-04 14:33:43
Message-ID: adEhRzu4YM7ztLXr@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 04, 2026 at 08:25:26AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> "Scores greater than or equal to <literal>1.0</literal>" in the comments
> of each field are misleading. This conflates scoring with vacuum/analyze
> eligibility and it's possible with a autovacuum_*_weight < 1.0 to trigger an
> autovacuum/analyze.

Ah, that's unfortunate. I think it'd be good to give folks some idea of
what autovacuum will actually process. I wonder if we could adjust the
documentation accordingly.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2026-04-04 14:36:58 Re: vectorized CRC on ARM64
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-04-04 14:30:02 Re: TupleDescAttr bounds checks