Hi,
On 2023-01-26 20:26:00 +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Could someone explain to me why we don't currently (optionally)
> include the functionality of page freezing in the PRUNE records?
I think we definitely should (and have argued for it a couple times). It's not
just about reducing WAL overhead, it's also about reducing redundant
visibility checks - which are where a very significant portion of the CPU time
for VACUUMing goes to.
Besides performance considerations, it's also just plain weird that
lazy_scan_prune() can end up with a different visibility than
heap_page_prune() (mostly due to concurrent aborts).
The number of WAL records we often end up emitting for a processing a single
page in vacuum is just plain absurd:
- PRUNE
- FREEZE_PAGE
- VISIBLE
There's afaict no justification whatsoever for these to be separate records.
> I think they're quite closely related (in that they both execute in VACUUM
> and are required for long-term system stability), and are even more related
> now that we have opportunistic page-level freezing. I think adding a "freeze
> this page as well"-flag in PRUNE records would go a long way to reducing the
> WAL overhead of aggressive and more opportunistic freezing.
Yep.
I think we should also seriously consider setting all-visible during on-access
pruning, and freezing rows during on-access pruning.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
