Re: Visibility map and freezing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zdenek Kotala
Subject Re: Visibility map and freezing
Date
Msg-id 4948F4C5.30007@sun.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Visibility map and freezing  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Visibility map and freezing  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: Visibility map and freezing  (Gregory Stark <greg.stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
What's about add second bit which mark frozen page (all tuples have freeze XID)? 
It should avoid full scan, but extend size of map.    Zdenek



Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a):
> The way VACUUM works with the visibility map is that if any pages are 
> skipped, relfrozenxid can't be updated. That means that plain VACUUM 
> won't advance relfrozenxid, and doesn't protect from XID wraparound.
> 
> We discussed this in the context of autovacuum before, and we have that 
> covered now. Autovacuum will launch a full-scanning vacuum that advances 
> relfrozenxid, when autovacuum_freeze_max_age is reached, and partial 
> vacuums otherwise.
> 
> Autovacuum will launch anti-wraparound vacuum even if it's otherwise 
> disabled. Which is good, but it'll be an unpleasant surprise for someone 
> who performs a simple manual database-wide "VACUUM", for example, every 
> night from a cron job. You could run VACUUM FREEZE, say monthly, to 
> force a full-scanning vacuum, but that's unnecessarily aggressive, and 
> you need to know about the issue to set that up in the first place.
> 
> I think we need a threshold similar to autovacuum_freeze_max_age for 
> manual vacuums as well: vacuum_freeze_max_age. If you run VACUUM, and 
> relfrozenxid is older than vacuum_freeze_max_age, the visibility map is 
> ignored and all pages are scanned.
> 
> This ensures that you don't run into forced anti-wraparound autovacuums 
> if you do your VACUUMs manually.
> 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Looking for someone with MinGW
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel restore vs. windows