Horton

Re: GiST VACUUM

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Костя Кузнецов <chapaev28@ya.ru>
Date: 2019-07-24T18:41:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:33 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> That's probably how it's going to go, but hey, doesn't hurt to ask :-).

I think that it would be fine to be conservative with nbtree, and only
target the master branch. The problem is annoying, certainly, but it's
not likely to make a huge difference for most real world workloads.
OTOH, perhaps the risk is so low that we might as well target
backbranches.

How do you feel about it?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Use full 64-bit XID for checking if a deleted GiST page is old enough.

  2. Refactor checks for deleted GiST pages.

  3. Delete empty pages during GiST VACUUM.

  4. Scan GiST indexes in physical order during VACUUM.

  5. Prevent GIN deleted pages from being reclaimed too early