MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAA5RZ0tz55uoQfcvLwvRWRPM0ry6SGfZ=-enQ4F0kaUgfPh+Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <acGqIhkP6xo4Vv1l@nathan>
 <CAMFBP2q-oMzpEua9Hdcpag15VGZn7aEO-uaHZ4yVEO_HCm55_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqQN-B2sQov8nsfZOmx-VeJMauSf4kLa3A8LsK1tUyBNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <acLGoktU2lp4SIlU@nathan>
 <CALj2ACUTuHZugAgbDk-NNPY_CPbw+c4T=HkRvvqq-FKqnVb24A@mail.gmail.com>
 <acRROBvlokDLQZlh@nathan>
 <CAApHDvrD9YZ8RBgb6NDtzyay1PsFReLvWHVqUCMFw1=qxM1N1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <acRdY_cxDvff5zW4@nathan>
 <CAApHDvqTDRbSVoGCv=1Y_TsAiggfEyGzH2QE+Hp57xwcBtfAOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <acVjtJA2F68vdYTB@nathan>
In-Reply-To: <acVjtJA2F68vdYTB@nathan>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:29:47 +1300
Message-ID: 
 <CAApHDvrUQPZcjQK7+PAcXoXc664AizDiBY4thBh1kqEHUouPPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
 Jim Nasby <jnasby@upgrade.com>,
	Sami Imseih <samimseih@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/CAApHDvrUQPZcjQK7%2BPAcXoXc664AizDiBY4thBh1kqEHUouPPQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 at 05:49, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 01:28:16PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > A review:
>
> Thanks.  I believe I've addressed all your feedback.

It might just be a personal taste thing, but I'd have done the
following differently:

+ if (autovacuum_freeze_score_weight != 0.0 ||
+ autovacuum_multixact_freeze_score_weight != 0.0 ||
+ autovacuum_vacuum_score_weight != 0.0 ||
+ autovacuum_vacuum_insert_score_weight != 0.0 ||
+ autovacuum_analyze_score_weight != 0.0)
+ list_sort(tables_to_process, TableToProcessComparator);

I'd have done:

+ table->score = scores.max;
+ sort_required |= (scores.max != 0.0);
+ tables_to_process = lappend(tables_to_process, table);

...

if (sort_required)
    list_sort(tables_to_process, TableToProcessComparator);

But, I'm fine if you'd rather keep it the way you have it.

No further comments at this stage.

Thanks for working on this.

David