Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:05 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 8:13 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that it makes sense to keep 'vacuum_freeze_strategy_threshold'
> > strictly for freezing.  But the point is that the eager scanning
> > strategy is driven by table freezing needs of the table (tableagefrac)
> > that make sense, but if we have selected the eager freezing based on
> > the table age and its freezing need then why don't we force the eager
> > freezing as well if we have selected eager scanning, after all the
> > eager scanning is selected for satisfying the freezing need.
>
> Don't think of eager scanning as the new name for aggressive mode --
> it's a fairly different concept, because we care about costs now.
> Eager scanning can be chosen just because it's very cheap relative to
> the alternative of lazy scanning, even when relfrozenxid is still very
> recent. (This kind of behavior isn't really new [1], but the exact
> implementation from the patch is new.)
>
> Tables such as pgbench_branches and pgbench_tellers will reliably use
> eager scanning strategy, no matter how any GUC has been set -- just
> because the added cost is always zero (relative to lazy scanning). It
> really doesn't matter how far along tableagefrac here, ever. These
> same tables will never use eager freezing strategy, unless the
> vacuum_freeze_strategy_threshold GUC is misconfigured. (This is
> another example of how scanning strategy and freezing strategy may
> differ for the same table.)

Yes, I agree with that.  Thanks for explaining in detail.

> You do have a good point, though. I think that I know what you mean.
> Note that antiwraparound autovacuums (or VACUUMs of tables very near
> to that point) *will* always use both the eager freezing strategy and
> the eager scanning strategy -- which is probably close to what you
> meant.

Right

> The important point is that there can be more than one reason to
> prefer one strategy to another -- and the reasons can be rather
> different. Occasionally it'll be a combination of two factors together
> that push things in favor of one strategy over the other -- even
> though either factor on its own would not have resulted in the same
> choice.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com