From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
Date: | 2019-04-16 20:00:15 |
Message-ID: | 7519.1555444815@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I'm thinking that we really need to upgrade vacuum's reporting totals
> so that it accounts in some more-honest way for pre-existing dead
> line pointers. The patch as it stands has made the reporting even more
> confusing, rather than less so.
Here's a couple of ideas about that:
1. Ignore heap_page_prune's activity altogether, on the grounds that
it's just random chance that any cleanup done there was done during
VACUUM and not some preceding DML operation. Make tups_vacuumed
be the count of dead line pointers removed. The advantage of this
way is that tups_vacuumed would become independent of previous
non-VACUUM pruning activity, as well as preceding index-cleanup-disabled
VACUUMs. But maybe it's hiding too much information.
2. Have heap_page_prune count, and add to tups_vacuumed, only HOT
tuples that it deleted entirely. The action of replacing a DEAD
root tuple with a dead line pointer doesn't count for anything.
Then also add the count of dead line pointers removed to tups_vacuumed.
Approach #2 is closer to the way we've defined tups_vacuumed up to
now, but I think it'd be more realistic in cases where previous
pruning or index-cleanup-disabled vacuums have left lots of dead
line pointers.
I'm not especially wedded to either of these --- any other ideas?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-04-16 21:44:32 | Re: block-level incremental backup |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-16 19:24:30 | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |