Re: error context for vacuum to include block number - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Date
Msg-id 20200122231725.GI13621@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: error context for vacuum to include block number  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: error context for vacuum to include block number  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:11:20AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > @@ -966,8 +986,11 @@ lazy_scan_heap(Relation onerel, VacuumParams *params, LVRelStats *vacrelstats,
> >              /* Work on all the indexes, then the heap */
> > +            /* Don't use the errcontext handler outside this function */
> > +            error_context_stack = errcallback.previous;
> >              lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(onerel, Irel, indstats,
> >                                      vacrelstats, lps, nindexes);
> > +            error_context_stack = &errcallback;
> 
> Alternatively we could push another context for each index inside
> lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(). There's been plenty bugs in indexes
> triggering problems, so that could be worthwhile.

Is the callback for index vacuum useful without a block number?

FYI, I have another patch which would add DEBUG output before each stage, which
would be just as much information, and without needing to use a callback.
It's 0004 here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200121134934.GY26045%40telsasoft.com
@@ -1752,9 +1753,12 @@ lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(Relation onerel, Relation *Irel,
        {
                int                     idx;

-               for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
+               for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++) {
+                       ereport(DEBUG1, (errmsg("\"%s\": vacuuming index",
+                                                       RelationGetRelationName(Irel[idx]))));
                        lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], vacrelstats->dead_tuples,




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan
Next
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: A rather hackish POC for alternative implementation of WITH TIES