| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages | 
| Date: | 2010-06-02 19:10:23 | 
| Message-ID: | 1275505502-sup-6468@alvh.no-ip.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 02 14:16:33 -0400 2010:
> We could, but I think we'd be better off just freezing at the time we
> mark the page PD_ALL_VISIBLE and then using the visibility map for
> both purposes.  Keeping around the old xmin values after every tuple
> on the page is visible to every running transaction is useful only for
> forensics, and building a whole new freeze map just to retain that
> information longer (and eventually force a massive anti-wraparound
> vacuum) seems like overkill.
Reducing the xid wraparound horizon "a bit" is reasonable, but moving it
all the way forward to OldestXmin is a bit much, methinks.
Besides, there's another argument for not freezing tuples immediately:
they may be updated shortly thereafter, causing extra churn for no gain.
I'd prefer a setting that would tell the system to freeze all tuples
that fall within a safety range whenever any tuple in the page is frozen
-- weren't you working on a patch to do this?  (was it Jeff Davis?)
(BTW maybe instead of separate visibility and freeze maps we could have
two bits in the visibility map?)
-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-02 19:14:24 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay | 
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2010-06-02 18:44:59 | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |