Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:11 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 15:35, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2020-01-20 09:09:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > Pushed, after fixing these two comments.
> > >
> > > When attempting to vacuum a large table I just got:
> > >
> > > postgres=# vacuum FREEZE ;
> > > ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 1073741828
> > >
> > > #0 palloc (size=1073741828) at /mnt/tools/src/postgresql/src/backend/utils/mmgr/mcxt.c:959
> > > #1 0x000056452cc45cac in lazy_space_alloc (vacrelstats=0x56452e5ab0e8, vacrelstats=0x56452e5ab0e8, relblocks=24686152)
> > > at /mnt/tools/src/postgresql/src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c:2741
> > > #2 lazy_scan_heap (aggressive=true, nindexes=1, Irel=0x56452e5ab1c8, vacrelstats=<optimized out>, params=0x7ffdf8c00290, onerel=<optimized out>)
> > > at /mnt/tools/src/postgresql/src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c:786
> > > #3 heap_vacuum_rel (onerel=<optimized out>, params=0x7ffdf8c00290, bstrategy=<optimized out>)
> > > at /mnt/tools/src/postgresql/src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c:472
> > > #4 0x000056452cd8b42c in table_relation_vacuum (bstrategy=<optimized out>, params=0x7ffdf8c00290, rel=0x7fbcdff1e248)
> > > at /mnt/tools/src/postgresql/src/include/access/tableam.h:1450
> > > #5 vacuum_rel (relid=16454, relation=<optimized out>, params=params(at)entry=0x7ffdf8c00290) at /mnt/tools/src/postgresql/src/backend/commands/vacuum.c:1882
> > >
> > > Looks to me that the calculation moved into compute_max_dead_tuples()
> > > continues to use use an allocation ceiling
> > > maxtuples = Min(maxtuples, MaxAllocSize / sizeof(ItemPointerData));
> > > but the actual allocation now is
> > >
> > > #define SizeOfLVDeadTuples(cnt) \
> > > add_size((offsetof(LVDeadTuples, itemptrs)), \
> > > mul_size(sizeof(ItemPointerData), cnt))
> > >
> > > i.e. the overhead of offsetof(LVDeadTuples, itemptrs) is not taken into
> > > account.
> > >
> >
> > Right, I think we need to take into account in both the places in
> > compute_max_dead_tuples():
> >
> > maxtuples = (vac_work_mem * 1024L) / sizeof(ItemPointerData);
> > ..
> > maxtuples = Min(maxtuples, MaxAllocSize / sizeof(ItemPointerData));
> >
> >
>
> Agreed. Attached patch should fix this issue.
>

if (useindex)
{
- maxtuples = (vac_work_mem * 1024L) / sizeof(ItemPointerData);
+ maxtuples = ((vac_work_mem * 1024L) - SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader) /
sizeof(ItemPointerData);

SizeOfLVDeadTuplesHeader is not defined by patch. Do you think it
makes sense to add a comment here about the calculation?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com