Hi,
On 2021-11-10 17:37:38 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 4:47 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Offhand I'd say that it would be a good idea to add comments over the
> call to vacuum_set_xid_limits() made from vacuumlazy.c.
Hm. To me all of this is more general than vacuum[lazy].c. Or even than
anything heap related.
> You might also move the call to GlobalVisTestFor() out of
> lazy_scan_heap(), so that it gets called right after
> vacuum_set_xid_limits(). That would make the new explanation easier to
> follow, since you are after all explaining the relationship between
> OldestXmin (or the vacuum_set_xid_limits() call itself) and vistest
> (or the GlobalVisTestFor() call itself).
>
> Why do they have to be called in that order? Or do they? I noticed
> that "make check-world" won't break if you switch the order.
We need pruning to be at least as aggressive as relfrozenxid. If we did it the
other way round, we couldn't guarantee that.
I think we should work towards not actually using a statically determined
relfrozenxid. We cause a lot of unnecessary re-vacuuming by using a static
cutoff - instead we should check what the actually oldest xid in the table is
and set relfrozenxid to that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund