Re: another autovacuum scheduling thread

> 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)