Re: GiST VACUUM

Hi!

> 4 апр. 2019 г., в 20:15, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> написал(а):
>
> On 25/03/2019 15:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 24/03/2019 18:50, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>> I was working on new version of gist check in amcheck and understand one more thing:
>>>
>>> /* Can this page be recycled yet? */
>>> bool
>>> gistPageRecyclable(Page page)
>>> {
>>>      return PageIsNew(page) ||
>>>          (GistPageIsDeleted(page) &&
>>>           TransactionIdPrecedes(GistPageGetDeleteXid(page), RecentGlobalXmin));
>>> }
>>>
>>> Here RecentGlobalXmin can wraparound and page will become unrecyclable for half of xid cycle. Can we prevent it by
resettingPageDeleteXid to InvalidTransactionId before doing RecordFreeIndexPage()? 
>>> (Seems like same applies to GIN...)
>> True, and B-tree has the same issue. I thought I saw a comment somewhere
>> in the B-tree code about that earlier, but now I can't find it. I
>> must've imagined it.
>> We could reset it, but that would require dirtying the page. That would
>> be just extra I/O overhead, if the page gets reused before XID
>> wraparound. We could avoid that if we stored the full XID+epoch, not
>> just XID. I think we should do that in GiST, at least, where this is
>> new. In the B-tree, it would require some extra code to deal with
>> backwards-compatibility, but maybe it would be worth it even there.
>
> I suggest that we do the attached. It fixes this for GiST. The patch changes expands the "deletion XID" to 64-bits,
andchanges where it's stored. Instead of storing it pd_prune_xid, it's stored in the page contents. Luckily, a deleted
pagehas no real content. 

So, we store full xid right after page header?
+static inline void
+GistPageSetDeleteXid(Page page, FullTransactionId deletexid)
+{
+    Assert(PageIsEmpty(page));
+    ((PageHeader) page)->pd_lower = MAXALIGN(SizeOfPageHeaderData) + sizeof(FullTransactionId);
+
+    *((FullTransactionId *) PageGetContents(page)) = deletexid;
+}

Usually we leave one ItemId (located at invalid offset number) untouched. I do not know is it done for a reason or
not....


Also, I did not understand this optimization:
+    /*
+     * We can skip this if the page was deleted so long ago, that no scan can possibly
+     * still see it, even in a standby. One measure might be anything older than the
+     * table's frozen-xid, but we don't have that at hand here. But anything older than
+     * 2 billion, from the next XID, is surely old enough, because you would hit XID
+     * wraparound at that point.
+     */
+    nextxid = ReadNextFullTransactionId();
+    diff = U64FromFullTransactionId(nextxid) - U64FromFullTransactionId(latestRemovedXid);
+    if (diff < 0x7fffffff)
+        return;

Standby can be lagging months from primary, and, theoretically, close the gap in one sudden WAL leap... Also, I think,
thatcomparison sign should be >, not <. 


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.