On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 15:40, Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 03:28, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:28 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > I've attached the patch fixes this issue.
> > >
> > > With this patch, we don't skip only index cleanup phase when
> > > performing an aggressive vacuum. The reason why I don't skip only
> > > index cleanup phase is that index vacuum phase can be called multiple
> > > times, which takes a very long time. Since the purpose of this index
> > > cleanup is to process recyclable pages it's enough to do only index
> > > cleanup phase.
> >
> > That's only true in nbtree, though. The way that I imagined we'd want
> > to fix this is by putting control in each index access method. So,
> > we'd revise the way that amvacuumcleanup() worked -- the
> > amvacuumcleanup routine for each index AM would sometimes be called in
> > a mode that means "I don't really want you to do any cleanup, but if
> > you absolutely have to for your own reasons then you can". This could
> > be represented using something similar to
> > IndexVacuumInfo.analyze_only.
> >
> > This approach has an obvious disadvantage: the patch really has to
> > teach *every* index AM to do something with that state (most will
> > simply do no work). It seems logical to have the index AM control what
> > happens, though. This allows the logic to live inside
> > _bt_vacuum_needs_cleanup() in the case of nbtree, so there is only one
> > place where we make decisions like this.
> >
> > Most other AMs don't have this problem. GiST has a similar issue with
> > recyclable pages, except that it doesn't use 32-bit XIDs so it doesn't
> > need to care about this stuff at all. Besides, it seems like it might
> > be a good idea to do other basic maintenance of the index when we're
> > "skipping" index cleanup. We probably should always do things that
> > require only a small, fixed amount of work. Things like maintaining
> > metadata in the metapage.
> >
> > There may be practical reasons why this approach isn't suitable for
> > backpatch even if it is a superior approach. What do you think?
>
> I agree this idea is better. I was thinking the same approach but I
> was concerned about backpatching. Especially since I was thinking to
> add one or two fields to IndexVacuumInfo existing index AM might not
> work with the new VacuumInfo structure.
It would be ok if we added these fields at the end of VacuumInfo structure?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
