> On Jun 25, 2026, at 11:45, Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> At Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:44:23 +0800, Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote in
>> While testing “[d7965d65f] Add rudimentary table prioritization to
>> autovacuum”, I noticed a small doc issue.
>>
>> In monitoring.sgml, it states:
>> ```
>> <row>
>> <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
>> <structfield>vacuum_score</structfield> <type>double precision</type>
>> </para>
>> <para>
>> Vacuum component score. Scores greater than or equal to
>> <xref linkend="guc-autovacuum-vacuum-score-weight"/> indicate that
>> autovacuum would vacuum the table (unless autovacuum is disabled).
>> </para></entry>
>> </row>
>> ```
>
> If I understand this correctly, aren't the *_score_weight settings
> used to prioritize candidate tables, rather than to determine whether
> a table needs vacuuming or analyzing in the first place?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Kyotaro Horiguchi
> NTT Open Source Software Center
Yes, I agree that the *_score_weight settings are used for prioritizing
candidate tables, not for deciding eligibility directly.
I actually took time to try to understand where the current wording may have
come from. For example, for vacuum_score, the code does:
```
/* Determine if this table needs vacuum, and update the score. */
scores->vac = (double) vactuples / Max(vacthresh, 1);
scores->vac *= autovacuum_vacuum_score_weight;
scores->max = Max(scores->max, scores->vac);
if (av_enabled && vactuples > vacthresh)
*dovacuum = true;
```
So, dovacuum is determined by "vactuples > vacthresh", in other words, when
vactuples / vacthresh > 1, dovacuum is true. Let’s ignore av_enabled here.
Then, the score is computed roughly as
```
scores->vac = (vactuples / vacthresh) * autovacuum_vacuum_score_weight
```
So when (vactuples / vacthresh) > 1, the score >
autovacuum_vacuum_score_weight.
I guess that may be how the current wording came from. But it seems a bit
indirect to describe it that way, because the weight itself does not determine
if autovacuum would vacuum or analyze the table.
Rewriting the doc more broadly would be a larger change. This small patch is
only meant to avoid the confusion shown by the test earlier, where the score is
equal to the weight but do_vacuum is false.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
