From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe) |
Date: | 2021-05-18 07:09:37 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoDMFFVfEiRjLO1KH9Kh07yGh7DUuEKd2ZmPXaFm1mViTw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:46 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:42 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > +1 to fix this. Are you already working on fixing this? If not, I'll
> > > post a patch.
> >
> > I posted a patch recently (last Thursday my time). Perhaps you can review it?
>
> Oh, I missed that the patch includes that fix. I'll review the patch.
>
I've reviewed the patch. Here is one comment:
if (vacrel->num_index_scans == 0 &&
- vacrel->rel_pages <= FAILSAFE_MIN_PAGES)
+ vacrel->rel_pages <= FAILSAFE_EVERY_PAGES)
return false;
Since there is the condition "vacrel->num_index_scans == 0" we could
enter the failsafe mode even if the table is less than 4GB, if we
enter lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe() after executing more than one
index scan. Whereas a vacuum on the table that is less than 4GB and
has no index never enters the failsafe mode. I think we can remove
this condition since I don't see the reason why we don't allow to
enter the failsafe mode only when the first-time index scan in the
case of such tables. What do you think?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-05-18 07:59:36 | RE: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN() |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-05-18 06:58:08 | Re: Race condition in recovery? |