MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAA5RZ0s7k6yve1Bq1OY+aXU3ifc_fvOiYkpE2VxwrUcHr2AtTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvpvkKYB6z-i1kiO9iePF0fz18-CaS9DZEWnSx1eO0RGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0tPvWLVXhDMC3t3LhwTM-OnWHSvPo7tnZzOphR=HB4kgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ab2uoj5yU8CVUJ_H@nathan>
 <CALj2ACV0HboeYiT1Z-=rb509WL3N0H9LsWRPqc_xUMEM-TM85g@mail.gmail.com>
 <acFan6knPZljm1Ay@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0tz55uoQfcvLwvRWRPM0ry6SGfZ=-enQ4F0kaUgfPh+Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <acGqIhkP6xo4Vv1l@nathan>
 <CAMFBP2q-oMzpEua9Hdcpag15VGZn7aEO-uaHZ4yVEO_HCm55_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqQN-B2sQov8nsfZOmx-VeJMauSf4kLa3A8LsK1tUyBNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <acLGoktU2lp4SIlU@nathan>
In-Reply-To: <acLGoktU2lp4SIlU@nathan>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:12:49 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAA5RZ0vP3rPzSp4hYsNNhJwouaQCVOBUwGhnhOz9XpTv-6V1jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Jim Nasby <jnasby@upgrade.com>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
 Greg Burd <greg@burd.me>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>,
	Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0vP3rPzSp4hYsNNhJwouaQCVOBUwGhnhOz9XpTv-6V1jw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 01:32:40PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > +1 for main patch first. I do think a view would be useful as a
> > follow-up. However, which columns we put in that view might have some
> > influence on how the current patch should look. I think the view
> > should show the individual scores and the total score as the Max() of
> > the individual scores.  If we didn't do that, it might be confusing to
> > the user which aspect of the score the final score is derived from.
> > That might mean that it'd be better to have
> > relation_needs_vacanalyze() output the scores individually, or perhaps
> > populate a struct that we pass in that gets allocated on the stack
> > during do_autovacuum(). That'd mean a bit less churn if we go with the
> > view containing individual scores.
>
> Agreed.  Here's a first try at that.  I also updated the DEBUG3 at the end
> of relation_needs_vacanalyze() to show the individual scores.  The comment
> above that function might need some work, and we might need a bit of
> additional commentary elsewhere.

This is good and these values could be exposed in the future view
individually. I like this.

v15 also LGTM.

--
Sami