From: | Matthew O'Connor <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum versus rolled-back transactions |
Date: | 2007-05-27 04:44:15 |
Message-ID: | 46590C9F.2070804@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> This means that a table could easily be full of dead tuples from failed
> transactions, and yet autovacuum won't do a thing because it doesn't
> know there are any. Perhaps this explains some of the reports we've
> heard of tables bloating despite having autovac on.
I think this is only a problem for failed inserts as failed updates will
be accounted for correctly by autovac and as you said, failed deletes
really do nothing. So is there a way for rollback to just add the
number of rolled back inserts to the n_tup_del counter? Then we would
be ok, no?
> I think it's fairly obvious how n_live_tup and n_dead_tup ought to
> change in response to a failed xact, but maybe not so obvious for the
> other counters. I suggest that the scan/fetch counters (seq_scan,
> seq_tup_read, idx_scan, idx_tup_fetch) as well as all the block I/O
> counters should increment the same for committed and failed xacts,
> since they are meant to count work done regardless of whether the work
> was in vain. I am much less sure how we want n_tup_ins, n_tup_upd,
> n_tup_del to act though. Should they be advanced "as normal" by a
> failed xact? That's what the code is doing now, and if you think they
> are counters for work done, it's not so unreasonable.
I think autovac only considers n_tup_(upd|ins|del) so while it might be
correct to fix those other counters, I don't know that they are must fix
items.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-05-27 05:08:01 | buildfarm failures after pgstat patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-27 03:59:03 | Re: Error correction for n_dead_tuples |