Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-06T23:40:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: >> > IIRC the patches that makes the cleanup scan skip has a problem >> > pointed by Peter[1], that is that we stash an XID when a btree page is >> > deleted, which is used to determine when it's finally safe to recycle >> > the page. Yura's patch doesn't have that problem? >> > >> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-Wz%3D1%3Dt5fcGGfarQGcAWBqaCh%2BdLMjpYCYHpEyzK8Qg6OrQ%40mail.gmail.com > Masahiko Sawada, if this patch isn't viable or requires serious rework > to be acceptable, then perhaps we should change its status to 'returned > with feedback' and you can post a new patch for the next commitfest..? I believe that the problem that I pointed out with freezing/wraparound is a solvable problem. If we think about it carefully, we will come up with a good solution. I have tried to get the ball rolling with my pd_prune_xid suggestion. I think it's important to not lose sight of the fact that the page deletion/recycling XID thing is just one detail that we need to think about some more. I cannot fault Sawada-san for waiting to hear other people's views before proceeding. It really needs to be properly discussed. -- Peter Geoghegan
Commits
-
Fix upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor
- 4d54543efa5e 11.0 landed
-
Increase upper limit for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor
- 6ca33a885bf8 11.0 landed
-
Fixes for vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor GUC option
- 9a994e37e08d 11.0 landed
-
Skip full index scan during cleanup of B-tree indexes when possible
- 857f9c36cda5 11.0 landed