On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:28 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> That clarifies your point. It's still a challenge for me to reason
> about which of these potential new problems really need to be solved in
> v1, though.
I don't claim to understand it that well myself -- not just yet.
I feel like I have the right general idea, but the specifics
aren't all there (which is very often the case for me at this
point in the cycle). That seems like a good basis for further
discussion.
It's going to be quite a few months before some version of this
patchset is committed, at the very earliest. Obviously these are
questions that need answers, but the process of getting to those
answers is a significant part of the work itself IMV.
> > Why stop at a couple of dozens of lines of code? Why not just change
> > the default of vacuum_freeze_min_age and
> > vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age to 0?
>
> I don't think that would actually solve the unbounded buildup of
> unfrozen pages. It would still be possible for pages to be marked all
> visible before being frozen, and then end up being skipped until an
> aggressive vacuum is forced, right?
With the 15 work in place, and with the insert-driven autovacuum
behavior from 13, it is likely that this would be enough to avoid all
antiwraparound vacuums in an append-only table. There is still one
case where we can throw away the opportunity to advance relfrozenxid
during non-aggressive VACUUMs for no good reason -- I didn't fix them
all just yet. But the remaining case (which is in lazy_scan_skip()) is
very narrow.
With vacuum_freeze_min_age = 0 and vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age =
0, any page that is eligible to be set all-visible is also eligible to
have its tuples frozen and be set all-frozen instead, immediately.
When it isn't then we'll scan it in the next VACUUM anyway.
Actually I'm also ignoring some subtleties with Multis that could make
this not quite happen, but again, that's only a super obscure corner case.
The idea that just setting vacuum_freeze_min_age = 0 and
vacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age = 0 will be enough is definitely true
in spirit. You don't need to touch vacuum_freeze_table_age (if you did
then you'd get aggressive VACUUMs, and one goal here is to avoid
those whenever possible -- especially aggressive antiwraparound
autovacuums).
--
Peter Geoghegan