From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Date: | 2016-06-16 16:54:40 |
Message-ID: | 20160616165440.pla4q3gbozyciuyo@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-06-16 12:43:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> > The issue isn't there without the feature, because we (should) never
> >> > access a tuple/detoast a column when it's invisible enough for the
> >> > corresponding toast tuple to be vacuumed away. But with
> >> > old_snapshot_timeout that's obviously (intentionally) not the case
> >> > anymore. Due to old_snapshot_threshold we'll prune tuples which,
> >> > without it, would still be considered HEAPTUPLE_RECENTLY_DEAD.
> >>
> >> Is there really an assumption that the heap and the TOAST heap are
> >> only ever vacuumed with the same OldestXmin value? Because that seems
> >> like it would be massively flaky.
> >
> > There's not. They can be vacuumed days apart. But if we vacuum the toast
> > table with an OldestXmin, and encounter a dead toast tuple, by the
> > definition of OldestXmin (excluding STO), there cannot be a session
> > reading the referencing tuple anymore - so that shouldn't matter.
>
> I don't understand how STO changes that. I'm not saying it doesn't
> change it, but I don't understand why it would.
Because we advance OldestXmin more aggressively, while allowing
snapshots that are *older* than OldestXmin to access old tuples on pages
which haven't been touched.
> The root of my confusion is: if we prune a tuple, we'll bump the page
> LSN, so any session that is still referencing that tuple will error
> out as soon as it touches the page on which that tuple used to exist.
Right. On the main table. But we don't peform that check on the toast
table/pages. So if we prune toast tuples, which are still referenced by
(unvacuumed) main relation, we can get into trouble.
> It won't even survive long enough to care that the tuple isn't there
> any more.
>
> Maybe it would help if you lay out the whole sequence of events, like:
>
> S1: Does this.
> S2: Does that.
> S1: Now does something else.
I presume it'd be something like:
Assuming a 'toasted' table, which contains one row, with a 1GB field.
S1: BEGIN REPEATABLE READ;
S1: SELECT SUM(length(one_gb_record)) FROM toasted;
S2: DELETE FROM toasted;
AUTOVAC: vacuum toasted's toast table, it's large. skip toasted, it's small
S1: SELECT SUM(length(one_gb_record)) FROM toasted;
<missing chunk error>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-16 17:44:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-06-16 16:44:02 | pgsql: Reword bogus comment |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-16 17:13:52 | Re: ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-16 16:50:03 | Re: ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist |