> Done in the attached. Thanks!
I have a few comments. #1. + * between 0.0 and 1.0 (inclusive). Setting all of these to 0.0 restores This should be "0.0 and 10.0" #2. typo: + * being scaling aggressively. Thisshould be "begin" #3. This reads more like documentation than code comment. + * To adjust how strongly each component contributes to the score, the + * following parameters can be adjusted from their default of 1.0 to anywhere + * between 0.0 and 1.0 (inclusive). Setting all of these to 0.0 restores + * pre-v19 prioritization behavior: + * + * autovacuum_freeze_score_weight + * autovacuum_multixact_freeze_score_weight + * autovacuum_vacuum_score_weight + * autovacuum_vacuum_insert_score_weight + * autovacuum_analyze_score_weight I don't actually think this section adds any value at all to the comments. #4. + elog(DEBUG3, "%s: vac: %.0f (threshold %.0f), ins: (disabled), anl: %.0f (threshold %.0f), score %.3f", A missing colon after "score", unlike the other occurrence which has it. #5. + if (autovacuum_freeze_score_weight > 1.0) + effective_xid_failsafe_age /= autovacuum_freeze_score_weight; + if (autovacuum_multixact_freeze_score_weight > 1.0) + effective_mxid_failsafe_age /= autovacuum_multixact_freeze_score_weight; + Shouldn't this be "if (autovacuum_freeze_score_weight > 0.0)" ? A weight > 0 should always adjust the threshold, right? we should only prevent division by 0 here. -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
