Re: VACUUMs and WAL

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: VACUUMs and WAL
Date: 2008-10-28 12:28:01
Message-ID: 49070551.1090903@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 10:10 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 11:45 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 08:49 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>> Looking at a VACUUM's WAL records makes me think twice about the way we
>>>> issue a VACUUM.
>>>>
>>>> 1. First we scan the heap, issuing a HEAP2 clean record for every block
>>>> that needs cleaning.
>>> IIRC the first heap pass just collects info and does nothing else.
>>> Is this just an empty/do-nothing WAL record ?
>> 8.3 changed that; it used to work that way. I guess I never looked at
>> the amount of WAL being generated.
>
> I can't see how it is safe to do anything more than just lookups on
> first pass.

What's done in the first pass is the same HOT pruning that is done
opportunistically on other page accesses as well. IIRC it's required for
correctness, though I can't remember what exactly the issue was.

I don't think the extra WAL volume is a problem; VACUUM doesn't generate
much WAL, anyway. As for the extra data page writes it causes; yeah,
that might cause some I/O that could be avoided, but remember that the
first pass often dirties buffers anyway to set hint bits.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hitoshi Harada 2008-10-28 12:31:37 Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-10-28 12:24:30 Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties