Horton

Re: [HACKERS] GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha.takeshi@jp.fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-11-29T14:05:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 25 September 2017 at 22:34, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

>> > Here is a small patch that skips scanning btree index if no pending
>> > deleted pages exists.
>> > It detects this situation by comparing pages_deleted with pages_free.
>
> It seems to work to prevent needless cleanup scans.

So this leaves us in the situation that

1. Masahiko's patch has unresolved problems
2. Yura's patch works and is useful

Unless there is disagreement on the above, it seems we should apply
Yura's patch (an edited version, perhaps).

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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