pghaicker 0.1.2
AI Assistant for Postgres Hackers
Requires Python: >=3.8

# pghaicker: AI Assistant for Postgres Hackers

[![Github](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=GitHub&message=Repo&logo=GitHub&color=green)](https://github.com/Florents-Tselai/pghaicker)
[![PyPI](https://img.shields.io/pypi/v/pghaicker.svg)](https://pypi.org/project/pghaicker/)

## Installation
```
brew install pandoc # or apt-get install pandoc
 ```
```
pip install pghaicker
export GOOGLE_API_KEY="xxx" # see https://aistudio.google.com/app/apikey
```
## Usage

```
Usage: pghaicker summarize [OPTIONS] THREAD_ID

  Download thread HTML, convert to Markdown, and summarize with Gemini.

Options:
  -s, --system_prompt TEXT
  -m, --model TEXT          default: gemini-2.0-flash  [required]
  --help                    Show this message and exit.
```

## `pghaicker summarize <thread-id>`


### Examples

Below are some examples of threads summarized

```shell
pghaicker summarize "CA+v5N40sJF39m0v7h=QN86zGp0CUf9F1WKasnZy9nNVj_VhCZQ@mail.gmail.com"
```

<details>
<summary>PATCH: jsonpath string methods: lower, upper, initcap, l/r/btrim, replace, split_part

</summary>
Okay, here's a summary of the PostgreSQL jsonpath string methods patch thread, focusing on decisions, blockers, and open questions.

**Summary:**

Florents Tselai proposes a patch adding string methods (lower, upper, initcap, l/r/btrim, replace, split_part) to PostgreSQL's jsonpath functionality.  The goal is to provide more flexible JSON data manipulation.  However, the introduction of these methods raises concerns about function immutability, as the behavior of these methods depends on the underlying locale.

**Key Concerns/Blockers:**

1.  **Immutability:** The primary concern is that these new methods, being locale-dependent, would violate the guarantee of immutability for `jsonb_path_query`.  This is important for query optimization and other internal PostgreSQL behaviors.
2.  **Standard Compliance:** It's questioned whether the proposed extensions align with the SQL/JSON standard, the standard followed for jsonpath in Postgres.  It is stated that the standard does not provide for custom jsonpath extensions.

**Potential Solutions/Decision Points:**

1.  **The "\_tz" Approach:**  The existing solution for time-zone-dependent datetime functions (using "\_tz" suffixed functions) is suggested as a possible pattern.

    *   **Decision:** Should the proposed functions be implemented as separate "\_tz" functions (e.g., `jsonb_path_query_tz`) or should a different approach be taken?
    *   **Pros:** Matches existing pattern, potentially simpler implementation.
    *   **Cons:**  The "\_tz" suffix is misleading, as the issue is locale dependence, not just time zones. Robert haas states and Florents agrees that it would be difficult to change "\_tz" family.

2.  **Flexible Mutability:**  Alexander Korotkov suggests a more sophisticated approach: a function that analyzes the jsonpath argument and determines if all elements are safe (immutable). If so, `jsonb_path_query` could be considered immutable; otherwise, it would be `STABLE`.

    *   **Decision:** Should a "flexible mutability" mechanism be implemented?
    *   **Pros:** More fine-grained control over immutability, potentially allowing for more optimization.
    *   **Cons:** More complex implementation, requires more in-depth analysis of jsonpath expressions.

3. **Extensibility/Hooks:** David E Wheeler asked what extension hooks could be implemented. Florents responded with the following ideas
    *   Define a new JsonPathItemType jpiMyExtType and map it to a JsonPathKeyword
    *   Add a new JsonPathKeyword and make the lexer and parser aware of that,
    *   Tell the main executor executeItemOptUnwrapTarget what to do when the new type is matched.
        This should be called by the main executor executeItemOptUnwrapTarget when it encounters case jpiMyExtType
        It looks like quite an endeavor, to be honest.
    *   **Decision:** Should hooks for jsonpath extensions be implemented?
        *   **Pros**: Easier to extend jsonpath functionality.
        *   **Cons**: Complex implementation.

**Current Status/Next Steps:**

*   Florents is planning another attempt to implement the changes.
*   There's general agreement that the existing "\_tz" approach has limitations, but there is no clear consensus on a better solution.
*   Florents plans to put the functions under the jsonb_path\_\*\_tz family, raise an error if they're used in the non-\_tz versions and document this behavior clearly.
*   It appears that it will need to rebase the code to account for changes in the jsonpath_scan.l file.

**Open Questions:**

*   What is the best way to handle immutability in the context of locale-dependent jsonpath functions?
*   How should the new functions be named (i.e., suffix)? Are there alternatives to "\_tz" that are less misleading?
*   How could hooks for jsonpath extensions be implemented?

The overall sentiment leans towards accepting the patch with a pragmatic, but slightly unsatisfying, solution (the "\_tz" approach). A more elegant solution, such as "flexible mutability," is recognized as potentially better but also more complex.
</details>


```shell
pghaicker summarize "CAApHDvrdxSwUt3sqhWMNnb_QwaX1A1TCuFWzCvirqKZo9aK_QQ%40mail.gmail.com"
```

<details>
<summary> Introduce some randomness to autovacuum</summary>
Okay, here's a breakdown of the PostgreSQL autovacuum thread:

**Summary:**

The thread discusses a proposal by Junwang Zhao to introduce randomness into the autovacuum process to mitigate issues like "spinning" (repeatedly vacuuming the same table without progress) and "starvation" (some tables never getting vacuumed).  The initial idea involved randomly rotating the list of tables to be vacuumed.  This evolved into a GUC configuration allowing different vacuum strategies (sequential vs. random).  However, the proposal receives mixed reactions. Some see it as a potentially helpful stop-gap measure, while others strongly oppose it, arguing that it masks underlying problems and adds unnecessary complexity.  Alternative solutions, such as prioritizing based on the age of the oldest XID or remembering the oldest Xmin value, are suggested.  Junwang then proposes another patch that skips tables whose last autovacuum removed a low percentage of dead tuples.

**Key Points:**

*   **Problem:** Autovacuum can get stuck on certain tables ("spinning") or neglect others ("starvation").
*   **Original Proposal:** Introduce randomness by rotating the list of tables to be vacuumed.
*   **Evolved Proposal:** Add a GUC (General User Configuration) option for different autovacuum strategies, including random.
*   **Concerns:**
    *   **Complexity:** Adding more parameters to an already complex system.
    *   **Masking Problems:** The randomness may hide the root cause of autovacuum issues, making diagnosis harder.
    *   **Nondeterministic Behavior:** Making autovacuum less predictable.
    *   **Spinning Not Resolved** introducing randomness will not resolve the "spinning" issue because the oldest xmin horizon is not advancing.
*   **Alternative Solutions Suggested:**
    *   Prioritization (mentioned in the initial post, but noted as requiring significant infrastructure changes).
    *   Remembering the `VacuumCutoffs.OldestXmin` value and skipping tables until it has advanced.
    *   Disable autovacuum on a per-table level and correct the issue
    *   Skip vacuuming tables that removed a small amount of dead tuples from the prior vacuum.

**Decision Points and Blockers:**

1.  **Should randomness be introduced into autovacuum scheduling?**
    *   **Arguments for:** Potentially mitigates spinning and starvation, provides a simple, immediate solution. As a GUC, it doesn't force the behavior on everyone.
    *   **Arguments against:** Masks underlying issues, adds complexity, introduces nondeterministic behavior.
    *   **Current Status:** Strong opposition from some key PostgreSQL developers (Nathan, David, Sami).
    *   **Blocker:** Overcoming the concerns of the developers who believe it's masking problems and adding unnecessary complexity. Need strong evidence that it solves more problems than it creates, or that it can coexist without negative side-effects.

2.  **Is a GUC the right way to implement this?**
    *   **Arguments for:** Gives users control, allows experimentation without affecting the core behavior for everyone.
    *   **Arguments against:** Still adds complexity to the configuration, users may not understand how to best use it.
    *   **Status:** Seemingly more acceptable if it's a GUC, but still depends on overall acceptance of the core idea.
    *   **Blocker:** N/A - GUC status makes it less of a blocker.

3.  **What is the best approach to address autovacuum spinning and starvation?**
    *   **Alternative Solutions:** The thread highlights the need for a more direct solution to the problem, such as prioritization or tracking the oldest Xmin.
    *   **Blocker:** Implementing prioritization requires significant changes to the PostgreSQL architecture.  Developing and testing the "remembered Xmin" approach requires more work.

4.  **Skipping vacuum for tables with low tuple removal**
    * **Argument for:** Helps to avoid useless cycles
    * **Status** Junwang proposes this alternative in patch V2-0002

**Potential Next Steps:**

*   **Gather Data:** Collect real-world data on autovacuum behavior to better understand the frequency and impact of spinning and starvation.
*   **Explore Alternative Solutions:** Investigate the feasibility of the suggested alternative solutions (prioritization, tracking Xmin) and prototype them.
*   **Address Concerns:** Provide a compelling argument and data showing that the benefits of adding randomness outweigh the concerns. Perhaps focus on scenarios where it provides a clear advantage without significant drawbacks.
*   **Test Patches:** Implement and thoroughly test any proposed changes in a test environment.
</details>