Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.2.1 & index-only scans : abnormal heap fetches after VACUUM FULL
Date: 2014-01-25 02:09:06
Message-ID: 20140125020906.GA17657@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 04:52:55PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Is everyone else OK with this approach? Updated patch attached.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> I started to look at this patch and i found that it fails an assertion
> as soon as you run a VACUUM FULL after a lazy VACUUM even if those are
> on unrelated relations. For example in an assert-enabled build with
> the regression database run:
>
> VACUUM customer;
> [... insert here whatever commands you like or nothing at all ...]
> VACUUM FULL customer;

Wow, thanks for the testing. You are right that I had two bugs, both in
visibilitymap_set(). First, I made setting heapBuf optional, but forgot
to remove the Assert check now that it was optional. Second, I passed
InvalidBlockNumber instead of InvalidBuffer when calling
visibilitymap_set().

Both are fixed in the attached patch. Thanks for the report.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

Attachment Content-Type Size
vacuum.diff text/x-diff 7.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-01-25 02:17:47 Re: extension_control_path
Previous Message Greg Stark 2014-01-25 01:56:21 Re: Minmax indexes