Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 19:09:48
Message-ID: adan_E0o69p81lIj@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 02:53:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh. I'm not happy that any part of autovacuum.c is now reachable from
> SQL: that's the sort of modularity violation that will bite us on the
> ass (indeed just did). 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.

> I think perhaps the right way forward is to rethink the API
> guarantees for pgstat_fetch_stat_tabentry_ext, as I speculated
> about in 02502c1bc:
>
> [...]
>
> 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.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Karlsson 2026-04-08 19:18:34 Re: updates for handling optional argument in system functions
Previous Message Andres Freund 2026-04-08 18:57:01 Re: Failing test_aio tests due to too low(illegal?) segsize_blocks