Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2017-02-20T06:05:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/17 7:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> The half-dead pages are never cleaned up if the ratio of pages
>> containing garbage is always lower than threshold. Also in gin index
>> the pending list is never cleared, which become big problem. I guess
>> that we should take action for each type of indexes.
>
>
> What worries me is that each AM is going to have a different notion of what
> needs to happen to support this. That indicates that trying to handle this
> at the vacuum level is not a good idea.
>
> I think it would be wiser to add support for skipping scans to the AM API
> instead. That also means you don't have to add support for this to every
> index type to start with.

Yeah, and it's better to have it as a index storage parameter.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


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