Horton

Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha.takeshi@jp.fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-03-22T11:33:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>> Not only might that be unnecessary, but if we don't have a test
>> demonstrating the problem, we also don't have a test demonstrating
>> that a given approach fixes it.
>
> Preventing recycling from happening until we feel like it is probably
> fine. It is not fine to break it forever, though. The specific problem
> is that there is an XID stored in dead B-Tree + SP-GiST pages that is
> used in the subsequent RecentGlobalXmin interlock that determines if
> recycling is safe (if there is no possible index scan that could land
> on the dead page). You know, the _bt_page_recyclable() check.

Oh.  OK, so this is not just about bloat -- it's about whether this
can be safely done at all.  Somehow, I missed that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Fix upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

  2. Increase upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor

  3. Fixes for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor GUC option

  4. Skip full index scan during cleanup of B-tree indexes when possible