From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
Date: | 2017-03-28 15:23:39 |
Message-ID: | 645f12d8-b7b1-09f0-4a6b-4b8358a04d48@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/23/17 1:54 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>>> We already have BTPageOpaqueData.btpo, a union whose contained type
>>> varies based on the page being dead. We could just do the same with
>>> some other field in that struct, and then store epoch there. Clearly
>>> nobody really cares about most data that remains on the page. Index
>>> scans just need to be able to land on it to determine that it's dead,
>>> and VACUUM needs to be able to determine whether or not there could
>>> possibly be such an index scan at the time it considers recycling..
>>
>> ISTM that we need all of the fields within BTPageOpaqueData even for
>> dead pages, actually. The left links and right links still need to be
>> sane, and the flag bits are needed. Plus, the field that stores an XID
>> already is clearly necessary. Even if they weren't needed, it would
>> probably still be a good idea to keep them around for forensic
>> purposes. However, the page header field pd_prune_xid is currently
>> unused for indexes, and is the same width as CheckPoint.nextXidEpoch
>> (the extra thing we might want to store -- the epoch).
>>
>> Maybe you could store the epoch within that field when B-Tree VACUUM
>> deletes a page, and then compare that within _bt_page_recyclable(). It
>> would come before the existing XID comparison in that function. One
>> nice thing about this idea is that pd_prune_xid will be all-zero for
>> index pages from the current format, so there is no need to take
>> special care to make sure that databases that have undergone
>> pg_upgrade don't break.
>>
>
> Thank you for the suggestion!
> If we store the poch within union field, I think we will not be able
> to use BTPageOpaqueData.btpo.xact at the same time. Since comparing
> btpo.xact is still necessary to determine if that page is recyclable
> we cannot store the epoch into the same union field. And if we store
> it into BTPageOpaqueData, it would break disk compatibility.
I have marked this patch "Waiting for Author".
This thread has been idle for five days. Please respond with a new
patch by 2017-03-30 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be marked
"Returned with Feedback".
Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-28 15:25:08 | Today's failures on buildfarm member longfin |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-28 15:22:38 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |