On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 11:15:35AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> + * force_scores set to true forces the computation of a score. This is useful for
>> + * tools that wish to inspect scores outside of the do_vacuum() path.
>>
>> I'm of two minds about this new function parameter. On one hand, I see the
>> utility of forcing score calculations even when autovacuum is disabled. On
>> the other hand, when autovacuum is disabled, the scores are actually 0.0,
>> and it's probably a good idea to report exactly what autovacuum workers
>> see.
>
> I went back and forth on this. Showing 0.0 when autovacuum is disabled
> would reflect what autovacuum workers actually see, but I think the more
> useful behavior is to always compute the score based on the table's actual
> state. This way, a DBA who has disabled autovacuum on a table can still
> see that its score is climbing and needs attention. The view shows need,
> not eligibility. This will also make the view more useful for maintenance
> jobs that wish to supplement autovacuum by looking at high scores
> and triggering a manual vacuum for those tables.
That's a fair point.
>> I also see that we're not forcing the computation of the (M)XID
>> scores. Is that intentional?
>
> hmm, the force_score does not need to be in the force_vacuum path
> because the score is calculated there naturally when the table is in
> need of force_vacuum. The force_score is there to ensure that
> we are not existing early in the autovacuum disabled case.
So, unless the table is beyond a freeze-max-age parameter, the (M)XID
scores will always be 0.0?
>> I wonder if we can rework this function to always calculate the scores,
>> even if autovacuum is disabled or !force_vacuum. This way, both paths are
>> doing the exact same thing and reporting the same scores.
>
> I prefer that we still calculate the score as if autovacuum is enabled
> for the reason above. I do think one potential middle ground is to have
> needs_analyze, needs_vacuum, eligible_analyze, eligible_vacuum
> fields to differentiate. I just rather not hide a score because a/v
> is disabled on a table.
My point is that instead of introducing a parameter to force score
computations, we could just _always_ do that in this function. IOW maybe
we could use this as an opportunity to simplify the function while also
preparing it for the system view.
--
nathan
