Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?
Date
Msg-id 20211221034630.maoteglpjqpgh62g@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to do only critical work during single-user vacuum?  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum?  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2021-12-20 17:17:26 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:41 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> > I like the idea of having a built-in function that does the bare
> > minimum to resolve wraparound emergencies, and I think providing some
> > sort of simple progress indicator (even if rudimentary) would be very
> > useful.
> 
> If John doesn't have time to work on this during the Postgres 15
> cycle, and if nobody else picks it up, then we should at least do the
> bare minimum here: force the use of the failsafe in single user mode
> (regardless of the age of relfrozenxid/relminmxid, which in general
> might not be that old in tables where VACUUM might need to do a lot of
> work). Attached quick and dirty patch shows what this would take. If
> nothing else, it seems natural to define running any VACUUM in single
> user mode as an emergency.

As I said before I think this is a bad idea. I'm fine with adding a vacuum
parameter forcing failsafe mode. And perhaps a hint to suggest it in single
user mode. But forcing it is a bad idea - single user isn't just used for
emergencies (c.f. initdb, which this patch would regress) and not every
emergency making single user mode useful is related to wraparound.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel vacuum comments
Next
From: haiming
Date:
Subject: FW: Question about HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED