Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> ----
>  * We are willing to use at most maintenance_work_mem (or perhaps
>  * autovacuum_work_mem) memory space to keep track of dead tuples.  We
>  * initially allocate an array of TIDs of that size, with an upper limit that
>  * depends on table size (this limit ensures we don't allocate a huge area
>  * uselessly for vacuuming small tables).  If the array threatens to overflow,
>
> I think that we need to update the above paragraph comment at top of
> vacuumlazy.c file.

Indeed, I missed that one. Fixing.

>
> ----
> +                               numtuples = Max(numtuples,
> MaxHeapTuplesPerPage);
> +                               numtuples = Min(numtuples, INT_MAX / 2);
> +                               numtuples = Min(numtuples, 2 *
> pseg->max_dead_tuples);
> +                               numtuples = Min(numtuples,
> MaxAllocSize / sizeof(ItemPointerData));
> +                               seg->dt_tids = (ItemPointer)
> palloc(sizeof(ItemPointerData) * numtuples);
>
> Why numtuples is limited to "INT_MAX / 2" but not INT_MAX?

I forgot to mention this one in the OP.

Googling around, I found out some implemetations of bsearch break with
array sizes beyond INT_MAX/2 [1] (they'd overflow when computing the
midpoint).

Before this patch, this bsearch call had no way of reaching that size.
An initial version of the patch (the one that allocated a big array
with huge allocation) could reach that point, though, so I reduced the
limit to play it safe. This latest version is back to the starting
point, since it cannot allocate segments bigger than 1GB, but I opted
to keep playing it safe and leave the reduced limit just in case.

> ----
> @@ -1376,35 +1411,43 @@ lazy_vacuum_heap(Relation onerel, LVRelStats
> *vacrelstats)
>         pg_rusage_init(&ru0);
>         npages = 0;
>
> -       tupindex = 0;
> -       while (tupindex < vacrelstats->num_dead_tuples)
> +       segindex = 0;
> +       tottuples = 0;
> +       for (segindex = tupindex = 0; segindex <=
> vacrelstats->dead_tuples.last_seg; tupindex = 0, segindex++)
>         {
> -               BlockNumber tblk;
> -               Buffer          buf;
> -               Page            page;
> -               Size            freespace;
>
> This is a minute thing but tupindex can be define inside of for loop.

Right, changing.

>
> ----
> @@ -1129,10 +1159,13 @@ lazy_scan_heap(Relation onerel, int options,
> LVRelStats *vacrelstats,
>           * instead of doing a second scan.
>           */
>          if (nindexes == 0 &&
> -            vacrelstats->num_dead_tuples > 0)
> +            vacrelstats->dead_tuples.num_entries > 0)
>          {
>              /* Remove tuples from heap */
> -            lazy_vacuum_page(onerel, blkno, buf, 0, vacrelstats, &vmbuffer);
> +            Assert(vacrelstats->dead_tuples.last_seg == 0);        /*
> Should not need more
> +                                                                 *
> than one segment per
> +                                                                 * page */
>
> I'm not sure we need to add Assert() here but it seems to me that the
> comment and code is not properly correspond and the comment for
> Assert() should be wrote above of Assert() line.

Well, that assert is the one that found the second bug in
lazy_clear_dead_tuples, so clearly it's not without merit.

I'll rearrange the comments as you ask though.


Updated and rebased v7 attached.


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=776671

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers