public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Pg Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Eager page freeze criteria clarification
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 13:03:12 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoY3i9fpjSoLi0mX1Wxa0b3LAy5Gz039Epm2XrkiCQFdYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAKRu_axe6eM2u5nNH_Lk1tsYM=U8m7y-MXyhVuc7CwQ2QSURQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-Wz=QQsFkH1g2tpkoT61OG+p6=QmRGE-0wPKcvkC93Vz6KA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_Z-AAanGqsLX0ecgK2kv1MSvATxV-F4-cCJQDZu9=TPzA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_b8BTWKxtTyayRmdjbh+3VQ-fnFYc2kDRKH62wyp8HUGA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZoCWXoZ8uu8QimTwM3e_b7wCz=EwCvPKpLng=14rR-8g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmobvHws+ECTE-4pbw0Uw4ORA7-Kc6WH-C6fJ2zoZ8CKwfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_ZooTvK0u5giAY6VM=2TNP7t_2piR=epT8TnKsxoWkCpg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoY3i9fpjSoLi0mX1Wxa0b3LAy5Gz039Epm2XrkiCQFdYA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 2023-09-27 15:45:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > One big sticking point for me (brought up elsewhere in this thread, but,
> > AFAICT never resolved) is that it seems like the fact that we mark pages
> > all-visible even when not freezing them means that no matter what
> > heuristic we use, we won't have the opportunity to freeze the pages we
> > most want to freeze.
>
> The only solution to this problem that I can see is what Peter
> proposed earlier: if we're not prepared to freeze the page, then don't
> mark it all-visible either. This might be the right thing to do, and
> if it is, we could even go further and get rid of the two as separate
> concepts completely.
I suspect that medium term the better approach would be to be much more
aggressive about setting all-visible, including as part of page-level
visibility checks, and to deal with the concern of vacuum not processing such
pages soon by not just looking at unmarked pages, but also a portion of the
all-visible-but-not-frozen pages (the more all-visible-but-not-frozen pages
there are, the more of them each vacuum should process). I think all-visible
is too important for index only scans, for us to be able to remove it, or
delay setting it until freezing makes sense.
My confidence in my gut feeling isn't all that high here, though.
> However, I think it would be OK to leave all of
> that to one side for the moment, *especially* if we adopt some
> proposal that does a lot more opportunistic freezing than we do
> currently. Because then the problem just wouldn't come up nearly as
> much as it does now. One patch can't fix everything, and shouldn't
> try.
Agreed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
view thread (36+ messages) latest in thread
reply
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Eager page freeze criteria clarification
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox