Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)

On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 at 02:36, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 6:58 PM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The patch "Set-pd_prune_xid-on-insert.txt" can be applied as the last
> > patch in the set. It sets pd_prune_xid on insert (so pages filled by
> > COPY or insert can also be set all-visible in the VM before they are
> > vacuumed). I gave it a .txt extension because it currently fails
> > 035_standby_logical_decoding due to a recovery conflict. I need to
> > investigate more to see if this is a bug in my patch set or elsewhere
> > in Postgres.
>
> I figured out that if we set the VM on-access, we need to enable
> hot_standby_feedback in more places in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl
> to avoid recovery conflicts. I've done that in the attached updated
> version 6. There are a few other issues in
> 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl that I reported here [1]. With these
> changes, setting pd_prune_xid on insert passes tests. Whether or not
> we want to do it (and what the heuristic should be for deciding when
> to do it) is another question.
>
> - Melanie
>
> [1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAAKRu_YO2mEm%3DZWZKPjTMU%3DgW5Y83_KMi_1cr51JwavH0ctd7w%40mail.gmail.com


0002 No comments from me. Looks straightforward.

Few comments on 0003.

1) This patch introduces XLHP_HAS_VMFLAGS. However it lacks some
helpful comments about this new status bit.

a) In heapam_xlog.h, in xl_heap_prune struct definition:


/*
* If XLHP_HAS_CONFLICT_HORIZON is set, the conflict horizon XID follows,
* unaligned
*/
+ /* If XLHP_HAS_VMFLAGS is set, newly set visibility map bits comes,
unaligned */

b)

we can add here comment why we use  memcpy assignment, akin to /*
memcpy() because snapshot_conflict_horizon is stored unaligned */

+ /* Next are the optionally included vmflags. Copy them out for later use. */
+ if ((xlrec.flags & XLHP_HAS_VMFLAGS) != 0)
+ {
+ memcpy(&vmflags, maindataptr, sizeof(uint8));
+ maindataptr += sizeof(uint8);

2) Should we move conflict_xid = visibility_cutoff_xid; assignment
just after heap_page_is_all_visible_except_lpdead call in
lazy_vacuum_heap_page?

3) Looking at this diff, do not comprehend one bit: how are we
protected from passing an all-visible page to lazy_vacuum_heap_page. I
did not manage to reproduce such behaviour though.

+ if ((vmflags & VISIBILITYMAP_VALID_BITS) != 0)
+ {
+ Assert(!PageIsAllVisible(page));
+ set_pd_all_vis = true;
+ LockBuffer(vmbuffer, BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE);
+ PageSetAllVisible(page);
+ visibilitymap_set_vmbyte(vacrel->rel,
+ blkno,
+



--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke