Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob4m4TjFCqKFvdR9=Y71fGoH_C-nfPgni6Trt8t3AKOLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 12:43 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> The problem here is that OldestXmin is supposed to be more
> conservative than vistest, which it almost always is, except in this
> one edge case. I don't think that plugging that hole changes the basic
> fact that there is one source of truth about what *needs* to be
> pruned. There is such a source of truth: OldestXmin.

Well, another approach could be to make it so that OldestXmin actually
is always more conservative than vistest rather than almost always.

I agree with you that letting the pruning horizon move forward during
vacuum is desirable. I'm just wondering if having the vacuum code need
to know a second horizon is really the best way to address that.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes