Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe)
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=KDNbv-8ZhN4q1_8V70P8MqeJjfNHgh0GWgKEjf_f+4Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe)  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:53 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I mainly suggested it because to me the current seems hard to
> understand. I do think it'd be better to check more often. But checking
> depending on the amount of dead tuples at the right time doesn't strike
> me as a good idea - a lot of anti-wraparound vacuums will mainly be
> freezing tuples, rather than removing a lot of dead rows. Which makes it
> hard to understand when the failsafe kicks in.

I'm convinced -- decoupling the logic from the one-pass-not-two pass
case seems likely to be simpler and more useful. For both the one pass
and two pass/has indexes case.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions