Re: Understanding when VM record needs snapshot conflict horizon

From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Understanding when VM record needs snapshot conflict horizon
Date: 2025-05-27 19:48:29
Message-ID: CAAKRu_ZZ8jzUSs_Lvjr3N9XbYFFe99zczT3_uM5tZuCeT2CfXA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 6:45 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> IMHO, if we include snapshot conflict horizon in cases where it is not
> necessary, don't you think it will impact performance on standby?
> because now it has to loop through the procarray on standby to check
> whether there is any conflict before applying this WAL.

Yep, that's a good point. In my patch set to combine the prune/freeze
record and visible record, the only time we could omit the snapshot
conflict horizon after phase I of vacuum in this combined record is
when the heap page was unmodified by phase I and the heap page was
already marked all-visible in the VM and is only being set all-frozen.
I will make sure that the snapshot conflict horizon is omitted in that
case to ensure we don't spend more time on the standby to check for
conflicts.

- Melanie

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2025-05-27 19:51:40 Re: Tightening DecodeNumberField's parsing rules
Previous Message Robert Haas 2025-05-27 19:18:50 Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure