Horton

Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-04-16T03:57:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 09:07:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we're failing to remove it, and it's below the desired freeze
> horizon, then we'd darn well better freeze it instead, no?
> 
> Since we know that the tuple only just became dead, I suspect
> that the case would be unreachable in practice.  But the approach
> you propose risks violating the invariant that all old tuples
> will either be removed or frozen.

Please note that I have added an open item for this investigation (see
"topminnow triggered assertion failure with vacuum_index_cleanup").
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Add toast-level reloption for vacuum_index_cleanup

  2. heap_prepare_freeze_tuple: Simplify coding

  3. Fix missing word.

  4. Allow VACUUM to be run with index cleanup disabled.

  5. Don't mark pages all-visible spuriously