Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records

2 мая 2015 г., в 2:10, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> написал(а):

On 5/1/15 11:19 AM, Vladimir Borodin wrote:

There are situations in which vacuuming big btree index causes stuck in
WAL replaying on hot standby servers for quite a long time. I’ve
described the problem in more details in this thread [0]. Below in that
thread Kevin Grittner proposed a good way for improving btree scans so
that btree vacuuming logic could be seriously simplified. Since I don’t
know when that may happen I’ve done a patch that makes some improvement
right now. If Kevin or someone else would expand [1] for handling all
types of btree scans, I suppose, my patch could be thrown away and
vacuuming logic should be strongly rewritten.

This looks like a good way to address this until the more significant work can be done.

I'm not a fan of "RBM_ZERO_NO_BM_VALID"; how about RBM_ZERO_BM_INVALID? or BM_NOT_VALID? Or maybe I'm just trying to impose too much English on the code; I see the logic to NO_BM_VALID…

+ * RBM_ZERO_NO_BM_VALID is the same as RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK, but does not set
+ * BM_VALID bit before returning buffer so that noone could pin it.

It would be better to explain why we want that mode. How about:

RBM_ZERO_NO_BM_VALID is the same as RBM_ZERO_AND_LOCK but does not set BM_VALID before returning the buffer. This is done to ensure that no one can pin the buffer without actually reading the buffer contents in. This is necessary while replying XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records in hot standby.

+ if (mode == RBM_ZERO_NO_BM_VALID)
+ TerminateBufferIO(bufHdr, false, 0);
+ else
+ TerminateBufferIO(bufHdr, false, BM_VALID);

Simply passing in a 0 seems a bit odd to me; is there anywhere else we do that?

--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com