MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAA5RZ0uVZLsX_k33QoWt8iRes73jyqs+EjypL9+1wW1v8NsYbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac00otrpVnWzZ_i4@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0vFtDKAOZALeLp3vLyhWcLntaqS-Oh36Xxgx5_8sYeSKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0tOJjUuJidUQYAeoUD4VGjOSjuB7ox4dtLAsyoCZqSN+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac2ODZSOjWNzueHZ@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0uVg0L3vVvkOiHaY9ZJ+K9ZcsyQH0TVQ5rXSd-ZEeVFNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac_vLKVgs4RYK1P-@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0sCRjH3xkHFdSXnKysdMZXFyaS_094+K-O_rr4Fkmwc=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <adB6FQeoUst6gHA0@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0t6bCR6Pasd_eWqXvyUmrNDWmHUy1yN_Po-c4+b9BtBqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <adEhRzu4YM7ztLXr@nathan>
In-Reply-To: <adEhRzu4YM7ztLXr@nathan>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2026 10:32:07 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAA5RZ0vxby2osMMaCuZ=680tmt583cF9n4rOzTGdsiS-1PJknA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add pg_stat_autovacuum_priority
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
 Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>,
	satyanarlapuram@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0vxby2osMMaCuZ%3D680tmt583cF9n4rOzTGdsiS-1PJknA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> 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.

That's why I thought having the bool fields made sense in the earlier
versions of the view. Since autovacuum is dealing with 2 concepts:

eligibility: is av enabled and is the table meeting thresholds
score: The priority of how the eligible tables will be processed.

So, while this could be explained in docs, I think it's better we report
these fields.

We might as well just call the view pg_stat_autovacuum in that case.

What do you think?

--
Sami