On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 11:50 AM Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 11:12:34AM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Thank you for making the patch quickly! The patch looks good to me. A > > nitpick: > > Thanks for reviewing. > > > + if (found && hentry->ar_hasrelopts) > > + avopts = &hentry->ar_reloptions; > > > > ar_hasrelopts is always true here, since entries are only created when > > extract_autovac_opts() returns non-NULL, so the second conjunct is > > redundant actually. Having said that, it seems safer for future > > changes and keeping it for symmetry with do_autovacuum() seems fine to > > me. > > Yeah, this is about what I was thinking. > > > Do we want to have regression tests for it? FWIW no test exercises > > pg_stat_get_autovacuum_scores(). The only reference in the tree is the > > view definition in rules.out. That's presumably why this went > > unnoticed. > > It might be worth adding a test or two for this view, but I doubt it > would've caught this issue. IIRC I held off adding tests originally > because I was worried about test stability.
Setting autovacuum_enabled = off to the tables while checking pg_stat_get_autovacuum_scores() would help the test stability. Adding regression tests to the view would be a separate topic so I think we can fix the issue by your patch separately from the regression tests. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
