Hi,
On 2022-12-29 09:43:39 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 9:21 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I do think we wanted to avoid reviving actually-dead tuples (present due to
> > the multixact and related bugs). And I'm worried about giving that checking
> > up, I've seen it hit too many times. Both in the real world and during
> > development.
>
> I could just move the same tests from heap_prepare_freeze_tuple() to
> heap_freeze_execute_prepared(), without changing any of the details.
That might work, yes.
> That would mean that the TransactionIdDidCommit() calls would only
> take place with tuples that actually get frozen, which is more or less
> how it worked before now.
>
> heap_prepare_freeze_tuple() will now often prepare freeze plans that
> just get discarded by lazy_scan_prune(). My concern is the impact on
> tables/pages that almost always discard prepared freeze plans, and so
> require many TransactionIdDidCommit() calls that really aren't
> necessary.
It seems somewhat wrong that we discard all the work that
heap_prepare_freeze_tuple() did. Yes, we force freezing to actually happen in
a bunch of important cases (e.g. creating a new multixact), but even so,
e.g. GetMultiXactIdMembers() is awfully expensive to do for nought. Nor is
just creating the freeze plan free.
I think the better approach might be to make heap_tuple_should_freeze() more
powerful and to only create the freeze plan when actually freezing.
I wonder how often it'd be worthwhile to also do opportunistic freezing during
lazy_vacuum_heap_page(), given that we already will WAL log (and often issue
an FPI).
> > Somewhat of a tangent: I've previously wondered if we should have a small
> > hash-table based clog cache. The current one-element cache doesn't suffice in
> > a lot of scenarios, but it wouldn't take a huge cache to end up filtering most
> > clog accesses.
>
> I imagine that the one-element cache works alright in some scenarios,
> but then suddenly doesn't work so well, even though not very much has
> changed. Behavior like that makes the problems difficult to analyze,
> and easy to miss. I'm suspicious of that.
I think there's a lot of situations where it flat out doesn't work - even if
you just have an inserting and a deleting transaction, we'll often end up not
hitting the 1-element cache due to looking up two different xids in a roughly
alternating pattern...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
