From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Nasby, Jim <nasbyj@amazon.com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:29:34 -0700
Message-ID: <20180924182934.rpl3lkoisy5o2tx4@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0A11E30F-DDDE-422F-B22A-3F6E3AA7A0A2@amazon.com>
References: <E1g0aGi-0000uN-Sq@gemulon.postgresql.org>
<20180914153554.562muwr3uwujno75@alvherre.pgsql>
<CA+Tgmoa7JJG0g2rCR=m8wXzExZDBpHPo04a5FyV-EotknVDONg@mail.gmail.com>
<7924791537551496@myt5-c56023d17c6b.qloud-c.yandex.net>
<20180921174347.wvszsn7uk56zvz7o@alap3.anarazel.de>
<0A11E30F-DDDE-422F-B22A-3F6E3AA7A0A2@amazon.com>
On 2018-09-24 18:25:46 +0000, Nasby, Jim wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> >> But as far i can see it is possible have aggressive non-wraparound vacuum. One important difference - regular and aggressive regular can be canceled by backend,.wraparound autovacuum can not. (by checking PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND in src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c )
> >
> > Yes, without checking the code, they should be different. Aggressive is
> > controlled by vacuum_freeze_table_age whereas anti-wrap is controlled by
> > autovacuum_freeze_max_age (but also implies aggressive).
>
> Right, except that by the time you get into the vacuum code itself nothing should really care about that difference. AFAICT, the only thing is_wraparound is being used for is to set MyPgXact->vacuumFlags |= PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND, which prevents the deadlock detector from killing an autovac process that’s trying to prevent a wraparound. I think it’d be clearer to remove is_wraparound and move the check from vacuum_rel() into lazy_vacuum_rel() (which is where the limits for HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum get determined). Something like the attached.
I'm very doubtful this is an improvement. Especially with the upcoming
pluggable storage work making vacuumlazy.c heap specific, while vacuum.c
stays generic. The concept of something like
PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND, should imo not be pushed down that much
(even if criteria for it might).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, nasbyj@amazon.com, sk@zsrv.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru
In-Reply-To: <20180924182934.rpl3lkoisy5o2tx4@alap3.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox