Re: error context for vacuum to include block number

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: error context for vacuum to include block number
Date: 2020-01-22 23:17:26
Message-ID: 20200122231725.GI13621@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:11:20AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > @@ -966,8 +986,11 @@ lazy_scan_heap(Relation onerel, VacuumParams *params, LVRelStats *vacrelstats,
> > /* Work on all the indexes, then the heap */
> > + /* Don't use the errcontext handler outside this function */
> > + error_context_stack = errcallback.previous;
> > lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(onerel, Irel, indstats,
> > vacrelstats, lps, nindexes);
> > + error_context_stack = &errcallback;
>
> Alternatively we could push another context for each index inside
> lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(). There's been plenty bugs in indexes
> triggering problems, so that could be worthwhile.

Is the callback for index vacuum useful without a block number?

FYI, I have another patch which would add DEBUG output before each stage, which
would be just as much information, and without needing to use a callback.
It's 0004 here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200121134934.GY26045%40telsasoft.com
@@ -1752,9 +1753,12 @@ lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(Relation onerel, Relation *Irel,
{
int idx;

- for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
+ for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++) {
+ ereport(DEBUG1, (errmsg("\"%s\": vacuuming index",
+ RelationGetRelationName(Irel[idx]))));
lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], vacrelstats->dead_tuples,

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2020-01-22 23:35:13 Re: A rather hackish POC for alternative implementation of WITH TIES
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-01-22 23:13:21 Re: Index Skip Scan