public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:21:47 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-WzmcpoheEuVwNCa8dnc3BQ9WRCZLNrhL-SOPpRB4wTLJbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoZMKKO_dGBhEzZ5T8jbmL+3kxSuLoQx_pyDfHKutiifCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzmfyfmmANV6RRchHmUBgjU9QYBUP_6CoFuQ3d23T4E6nQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2-Wz=DHb2hXGqcvuVyy0qC88VcYoaNjy2FFtb-xjQMOZTQqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzkiB-qcsBmWrpzP0nxvrQExoUts1d7TYShg_DrkOHeg4Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzkPb42odWen-HZRYw1zUe=fPAp1_JbSuVvPXQTO2iBMPw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WzmXiYMPX80AJnUoOdQZ3VRGyzan+xvdg1ayG8w1Ld2riw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2-WznaT53OO1VCrCUHHUWxZEsXVWxP11TuNHvkZqr-frRuQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WznpbJQJ5Hp=Te3YH0hcYeLEZwGe6de6E4L8E1vrNuCLKA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2-WzmcpoheEuVwNCa8dnc3BQ9WRCZLNrhL-SOPpRB4wTLJbA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On February 19, 2022 7:56:53 PM PST, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 7:47 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Non DEAD orphaned versions shouldn't cause a problem in lazy_scan_prune(). The
>> problem here is a DEAD orphaned HOT tuples, and those we should be able to
>> delete with the new page pruning logic, right?
>
>Right. But what good does that really do? The problematic page had a
>third tuple (at offnum 3) that was LIVE. If we could have done
>something about the problematic tuple at offnum 2 (which is where we
>got stuck), then we'd still be left with a very unpleasant choice
>about what happens to the third tuple.
Why does anything need to happen to it from vacuum's POV? It'll not be a problem for freezing etc. Until it's deleted vacuum doesn't need to care.
Probably worth a WARNING, and amcheck definitely needs to detect it, but otherwise I think it's fine to just continue.
>> I think it might be worth getting rid of the need for the retry approach by
>> reusing the same HTSV status array between heap_prune_page and
>> lazy_scan_prune. Then the only legitimate reason for seeing a DEAD item in
>> lazy_scan_prune() would be some form of corruption. And it'd be a pretty
>> decent performance boost, HTSV ain't cheap.
>
>I guess it doesn't actually matter if we leave an aborted DEAD tuple
>behind, that we could have pruned away, but didn't. The important
>thing is to be consistent at the level of the page.
That's not ok, because it opens up dangers of being interpreted differently after wraparound etc.
But I don't see any cases where it would happen with the new pruning logic in your patch and sharing the HTSV status array?
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
view thread (20+ 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: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations
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