Re: BUG #17257: (auto)vacuum hangs within lazy_scan_prune()
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Ensure vacuum removes all visibly dead tuples older than OldestXmin
- 06bf404cd07b 16.4 landed
- 45ce054c02b8 14.13 landed
- dc6354c67017 15.8 landed
-
Combine freezing and pruning steps in VACUUM
- 6dbb490261a6 17.0 cited
-
Handle non-chain tuples outside of heap_prune_chain()
- 6f47f6883151 17.0 cited
-
Fix false reports in pg_visibility
- e85662df44ff 17.0 cited
-
Remove retry loop in heap_page_prune().
- 1ccc1e05ae8f 17.0 cited
-
vacuumlazy.c: document vistest and OldestXmin.
- 73f6ec3d3c8d 15.0 cited
-
Deduplicate choice of horizon for a relation procarray.c.
- d9d8aa9bb9aa 15.0 cited
-
Remove tupgone special case from vacuumlazy.c.
- 8523492d4e34 14.0 cited
-
Simplify state managed by VACUUM.
- b4af70cb2103 14.0 cited
-
Recycle nbtree pages deleted during same VACUUM.
- 9dd963ae2534 14.0 cited
-
snapshot scalability: Don't compute global horizons while building snapshots.
- dc7420c2c927 14.0 cited
-
Raise error when affecting tuple moved into different partition.
- f16241bef7cc 11.0 cited
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 1:30 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 12:24 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > > Fair enough. While I agree there's a decent chance back-patching would be > > okay, I think there's also a decent chance that 1ccc1e05ae creates the problem > > Matthias theorized. Something like: we update relfrozenxid based on > > OldestXmin, even though GlobalVisState caused us to retain a tuple older than > > OldestXmin. Then relfrozenxid disagrees with table contents. > > Either every relevant code path has the same OldestXmin to work off > of, or the whole NewRelfrozenXid/relfrozenxid-tracking thing can't be > expected to work as designed. I find it a bit odd that > pruneheap.c/GlobalVisState has no direct understanding of this > dependency (none that I can discern, at least). What do you think of the idea of adding a defensive "can't happen" error to lazy_scan_prune() that will catch DEAD or RECENTLY_DEAD tuples with storage that still contain an xmax < OldestXmin? This probably won't catch every possible problem, but I suspect it'll work well enough. -- Peter Geoghegan