On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:28 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:41 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But we're not sure when the next anti-wraparound vacuum will take
> > place. Since the table is already vacuumed by a non-aggressive vacuum
> > with disabling index cleanup, an autovacuum will process the table
> > when the table gets modified enough or the table's relfrozenxid gets
> > older than autovacuum_vacuum_max_age. If the new threshold, probably a
> > new GUC, is much lower than autovacuum_vacuum_max_age and
> > vacuum_freeze_table_age, the table is continuously vacuumed without
> > advancing relfrozenxid, leading to unnecessarily index bloat. Given
> > the new threshold is for emergency purposes (i.g., advancing
> > relfrozenxid faster), I think it might be better to use
> > vacuum_freeze_table_age as the lower bound of the new threshold. What
> > do you think?
>
> As you know, when the user sets vacuum_freeze_table_age to a value
> that is greater than the value of autovacuum_vacuum_max_age, the two
> GUCs have values that are contradictory. This contradiction is
> resolved inside vacuum_set_xid_limits(), which knows that it should
> "interpret" the value of vacuum_freeze_table_age as
> (autovacuum_vacuum_max_age * 0.95) to paper-over the user's error.
> This 0.95 behavior is documented in the user docs, though it happens
> silently.
>
> You seem to be concerned about a similar contradiction. In fact it's
> *very* similar contradiction, because this new GUC is naturally a
> "sibling GUC" of both vacuum_freeze_table_age and
> autovacuum_vacuum_max_age (the "units" are the same, though the
> behavior that each GUC triggers is different -- but
> vacuum_freeze_table_age and autovacuum_vacuum_max_age are both already
> *similar and different* in the same way). So perhaps the solution
> should be similar -- silently interpret the setting of the new GUC to
> resolve the contradiction.
Yeah, that's exactly what I also thought.
>
> (Maybe I should say "these two new GUCs"? MultiXact variant might be needed...)
Yes, I think we should have also for MultiXact.
>
> This approach has the following advantages:
>
> * It follows precedent.
>
> * It establishes that the new GUC is a logical extension of the
> existing vacuum_freeze_table_age and autovacuum_vacuum_max_age GUCs.
>
> * The default value for the new GUC will be so much higher (say 1.8
> billion XIDs) than even the default of autovacuum_vacuum_max_age that
> it won't disrupt anybody's existing postgresql.conf setup.
>
> * For the same reason (the big space between autovacuum_vacuum_max_age
> and the new GUC with default settings), you can almost set the new GUC
> without needing to know about autovacuum_vacuum_max_age.
>
> * The overall behavior isn't actually restrictive/paternalistic. That
> is, if you know what you're doing (say you're testing the feature) you
> can reduce all 3 sibling GUCs to 0 and get the testing behavior that
> you desire.
>
> What do you think?
Totally agreed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
