Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Date: 2025-06-20T14:45:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Test that vacuum removes tuples older than OldestXmin
- 2c0bc4765741 17.6 landed
- 303ba0573ce6 18.0 landed
- 80c34692e8e6 17.0 landed
- aa607980aee0 18.0 landed
-
Lower minimum maintenance_work_mem to 64kB
- 2eda3df9ad53 17.0 landed
- bbf668d66fbf 18.0 landed
-
Add accidentally omitted test to meson build file
- 9d198f4d3e3b 16.4 landed
-
Use DELETE instead of UPDATE to speed up vacuum test
- 924a08b76f5d 14.13 landed
- 9744fe24118b 15.8 landed
- 571e0ee40ebd 16.4 landed
-
Revert "Test that vacuum removes tuples older than OldestXmin"
- efcbb76efe40 18.0 landed
- 1a3e90948b50 17.0 landed
-
Ensure vacuum removes all visibly dead tuples older than OldestXmin
- fd4f12df5e46 17.0 landed
- 83c39a1f7f3f 18.0 landed
Attachments
- v2-0001-Test-that-vacuum-removes-tuples-older-than-Oldest.patch (text/x-patch) patch v2-0001
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 12:33 AM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's what numbers I'm looking at as well: > > *** normal > meson options: -Dcassert=true -Ddebug=true -Dc_args='-Og' > -Dc_args='-fno-omit-frame-pointer' > > $ meson test -q --print-errorlogs --suite setup && meson test -q > --print-errorlogs recovery/048_vacuum_horizon_floor > > $ grep finished > > build-debug/testrun/recovery/048_vacuum_horizon_floor/log/048_vacuum_horizon_floor_primary.log > > 2025-06-18 10:08:19.072 +07 [5730] 048_vacuum_horizon_floor.pl INFO: > finished vacuuming "test_db.public.vac_horizon_floor_table": index > scans: 12 > Thanks for providing this! I actually did see the same number of index scans as you with 9000 rows. So, I think I figured out why I was seeing the test hang waiting for pg_stat_progress_vacuum to report an index count. Using auto_explain, I determined that the cursor was using an index-only scan with lower row counts. That meant it pinned an index leaf page instead of a heap page and the first round of index vacuuming couldn't complete because btree index vacuuming requires we acquire a cleanup lock on every leaf page. I solved this by disabling all index scans in the cursor's session. I attached the updated patch which passes for me on 32 and 64-bit builds. We've managed to reduce the row count so low (1000-2000 rows) that I'm not sure it matters if we have a 64-bit and 32-bit case. However, since we have the large block comment about the required number of rows, I figured we might as well have the two different nrows. I'll have to do some more research on 14-16 to see if this could be a problem there. I also disabled prefetching, concurrent IO, and read combining for vacuum -- it didn't cause a problem in my local tests, but I could see it interfering with the test and potentially causing flakes/failures on some machines/configurations. That means I'll have to do a slightly different patch for 17 than 18 (17 doesn't have io_combine_limit). Finally, I disabled parallelism as a future-proofing for having heap vacuum parallelism -- wouldn't want a mysterious failure in this test in the future. - Melanie