On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 4:15 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:06 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > What I've described in a scheme for deciding to not freeze where that
> > would usually happen -- a scheme for *vetoing* page freezing -- rather
> > than a scheme for deciding to freeze. On its own, what I suggested
> > cannot help at all. It assumes a world in which we're already deciding
> > to freeze much more frequently, based on whatever other criteria. It's
> > intended to complement something like the LSN scheme.
>
> I like the direction of this idea. It could avoid repeatedly freezing
> a page that is being modified over and over. I tried it out with a
> short-running version of workload I (approximating a work queue) --
> and it prevents unnecessary freezing.
I see a lot of value in it as an enabler of freezing at the earliest
opportunity, which is usually the way to go.
> The problem with this criterion is that if you freeze a page and then
> ever modify it again -- even once, vacuum will not be allowed to
> freeze it again until it is forced to.
Right. Like you, I was thinking of something that dampened VACUUM's
newfound enthusiasm for freezing, in whatever way -- not a discrete
rule. A mechanism with a sense of proportion about what it meant for
the page to look a certain way. The strength of the signal would
perhaps be highest (i.e. most discouraging of further freezing) on a
page that has only a few relatively recent unfrozen tuples. XID age
could actually be useful here!
> Perhaps we could use a very
> strict LSN cutoff for pages which contain any frozen tuples -- for
> example: only freeze a page containing a mix of frozen and unfrozen
> tuples if it has not been modified since before the last vacuum of the
> relation ended.
You might also need to account for things like interactions with the
FSM. If the new unfrozen tuple packs the page to the brim, and the new
row is from an insert, then maybe the mechanism shouldn't dampen our
enthusiasm for freezing the page at all. Similarly, on a page that has
no unfrozen tuples at all just yet, it would make sense for the
algorithm to be most enthusiastic about freezing those pages that can
fit no more tuples. Perhaps we'd be willing to accept the cost of an
extra FPI with such a page, for example.
It will take time to validate these sorts of ideas thoroughly, of
course. I agree with what you said upthread about it also being a
question of values and priorities.
--
Peter Geoghegan