On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:24 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:24 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that because the tuples that got dead after heap_page_prune()
> > looked are recorded but not removed without lazy_vacuum_page() we need
> > to process them in lazy_vacuum_page(). For decision about whether to
> > truncate we should not change it, so I will fix it. It should be an
> > another option to control whether to truncate if we want.
>
> I think that heap_page_prune() is going to truncate dead tuples to
> dead line pointers. At that point the tuple is gone. The only
> remaining step is to mark the dead line pointer as unused, which can't
> be done without scanning the indexes. So I don't understand what
> lazy_vacuum_page() would need to do in this case.
>
vacuumlazy.c:L1022
switch (HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum(&tuple, OldestXmin, buf))
{
case HEAPTUPLE_DEAD:
/*
* Ordinarily, DEAD tuples would have been removed by
* heap_page_prune(), but it's possible that the tuple
* state changed since heap_page_prune() looked. In
* particular an INSERT_IN_PROGRESS tuple could have
* changed to DEAD if the inserter aborted. So this
* cannot be considered an error condition.
*
(snip)
*/
if (HeapTupleIsHotUpdated(&tuple) ||
HeapTupleIsHeapOnly(&tuple))
nkeep += 1;
else
tupgone = true; /* we can delete the tuple */
all_visible = false;
break;
As the above comment says, it's possible that the state of an
INSERT_IN_PROGRESS tuple could be changed to 'dead' after
heap_page_prune(). Since such tuple is not truncated at this point we
record it and set it as UNUSED in lazy_vacuum_page(). I think that the
DISABLE_INDEX_CLEANUP case is the same; we need to process them after
recorded. Am I missing something?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center