On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 10:09 PM Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 10:54 AM Sami Imseih <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 4. Is the view intended to be exposed to PUBLIC without any ACL > > > restrictions? > > > > > 2/ Do we need to revoke permissions on pg_stat_get_autovacuum_priority > > > for all and grant them to pg_monitor or similar? Especially since this > > > function loops over all the relations in a database, we may not want > > > everyone to be able to do this. > > > > I think you're correct there. While the data is not sensitive, it > > should have more controlled usage. It's only taking an AccessShareLock, > > but you would not want anyone to be able to run this since it's > > doing real computation. I think requiring pg_read_all_stats > > is a good idea. Will do. > > +1 for pg_read_all_stats. >
Is there a gap here where someone may have been granted MAINTAIN on a relation but they do not have pg_read_all_stats? > > > Can we have the per-relation prioritization computation function in C > > > and provide a per-database computation function as a SQL function over > > > this per-relation function in system_functions.sql? > > > > Yes, perhaps we should do this. So we can have a function called > > pg_stat_get_autovacuum_priority() that either takes a NULL or an OID > > to either return all the tables or just a single table. > > This is a similar usage pattern as pg_stat_get_subscription or > > pg_stat_get_activity. > > > > pg_stat_autovacuum_priority will be a view that wraps around the NULL > > variant of the function. > > > > The case where the OID is passed we just do a SearchSysCache1(RELOID,...) > > whereas the other case will do the full catalog scan. > > > > What do you think? > > IMHO, we can have pg_stat_get_relation_autovacuum_priority defined as > a C function to give the autovacuum scoring as of the given moment for > the given table. It's easy for one to write a function to get scoring > for all the relations in a database. This keeps things simple yet > useful. > I don't have a strong opinion on the above, but I do suspect that the most common way people will interact with this is by querying against the view with a WHERE clause, so optimizing for that case seems important. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
