Re: New criteria for autovacuum

On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:27 PM Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru> wrote:
>
> From logical point of view I agree with you: taken in account number of inserted tuples makes sense if it allows to
markpage as all-visible. 
> So `ins_since_vacuum` should be better renamed to `ins_all_visible_since_vacuum` and count only all-visible tuples.
Ifnewly inserted tuple is not visible to all, then it should not be accounted in statistic and trigger autovacuum. But
Ihave completely no idea of how to efficiently maintain such counter: we should keep track of xids of all recently
insertedtuples and on each transaction commit determine which one of them become all-visible. 
>
> And your suggestion just to not reset `ins_since_vacuum` until all of them becomes all-visible may be easier to
implement,but under permanent workload it can lead to situation when `ins_since_vacuum` is never reset and at each
vacuumiteration cause vacuuming of the table. Which may cause significant degrade of performance. Even without
long-livingtransactions. 

Right, you definitely can't just never reset it to 0. As it is
currently defined, the behavior is correct, that is how many tuples
were inserted since the last vacuum.

As for your proposed patch, I agree with Robert that triggering
vacuums using the stat you proposed just adds to the problem we know
we already have with wasted vacuuming work due to long-running
transactions.

A more targeted solution to your specific problem would be to update
the visibility map on access. Then, the first time you have to fetch
that heap page, you could mark it all-visible (assuming the long
running transaction has ended) and then the next index-only scan
wouldn't have to do the same heap fetch. It doesn't add any overhead
in the case that the long running transaction has not ended, unlike
trying to trigger another autovacuum.

- Melanie