On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 08:42:05PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Only the first pass of vacuum knows how to mark pages all-visible.
> After the update, the first pass of the first vacuum sees a dead tuple
> on the old page and truncates it to a dead line pointer. When it
> comes to the new page, it observes that the page is now all-visible
> and marks it so. It then does index vacuuming and returns to the
> first page, marking the dead line pointer unused. But during this
> second visit to the old page, there's no possibility of marking the
> page as all-visible, because the code doesn't know how to do that.
> The next vacuum's first pass, however, can do so, because there are no
> longer any dead tuples on the page.
>
> We could fix this by modifying lazy_vacuum_page(): since we have to
> dirty the buffer anyway, we could recheck whether all the remaining
> tuples on the page are now all-visible, and if so set the visibility
> map bit. This is probably desirable even apart from index-only scans,
> because it will frequently save the next vacuum the cost of reading,
> dirtying, and writing extra pages. There will be some incremental CPU
> cost, but that seems likely to be more than repaid by the I/O savings.
>
> Thoughts? Should we do this at all? If so, should we squeeze it into
> 9.2 or leave it for 9.3?
Sounds like a good idea. It has bothered me that two consecutive VACUUMs of a
table, with no intervening activity, can dirty a page twice. Making that less
frequent is a good thing. I'd hold the change for 9.3, but that's probably an
unusually-conservative viewpoint.
