| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Date: | 2024-07-17 16:10:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznnDZgZAOUins9ye8_=Y=892N2mvjs9bUB8s37gXnOKQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:07 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We didn't end up doing two index vacuum passes. Because it doesn't
> repro locally for me, I can only assume that the conditions for
> forcing two index vacuuming passes in master just weren't met in this
> case. I'm unsurprised, as it is much harder since 17 to force two
> passes of index vacuuming. It seems like this might be as unstable as
> I feared. I could add more dead data. Or, I could just commit the test
> to the back branches before 17. What do you think?
How much margin of error do you have, in terms of total number of
dead_items? That is, have you whittled it down to the minimum possible
threshold for 2 passes?
Some logging with VACUUM VERBOSE (run on the ci instance) might be illuminating.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-17 16:29:06 | Re: problems with "Shared Memory and Semaphores" section of docs |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-07-17 16:07:08 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |