Replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM during Hot Standby was previously thought to
require complex interlocking that matched the requirements on the
master. This required an O(N) operation that became a significant
problem with large indexes, causing replication delays of seconds or in
some cases minutes while the XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM was replayed.
This commit skips the “pin scan” that was previously required, by
observing in detail when and how it is safe to do so, with full
documentation. The pin scan is skipped only in replay; the VACUUM code
path on master is not touched here.
No tests included. Manual tests using an additional patch to view WAL records
and their timing have shown the change in WAL records and their handling has
successfully reduced replication delay.
This is a back-patch of commits
687f2cd7a015,
3e4b7d87988f,
b60284261375
by Simon Riggs, to branches 9.4 and 9.5. No further backpatch is
possible because this depends on catalog scans being MVCC. I (Álvaro)
additionally updated a slight problem in the README, which explains why
this touches the 9.6 and master branches.
because it allows running applications to continue while the standby
changes state into a normally running server.
+The interlocking required to avoid returning incorrect results from
+non-MVCC scans is not required on standby nodes. That is because
+HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate(), HeapTupleSatisfiesSelf(),
+HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty() and HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() are only
+ever used during write transactions, which cannot exist on the standby.
+MVCC scans are already protected by definition, so HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC()
+is not a problem. That leaves concern only for HeapTupleSatisfiesToast().
+HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() doesn't use MVCC semantics, though that's
+because it doesn't need to - if the main heap row is visible then the
+toast rows will also be visible. So as long as we follow a toast
+pointer from a visible (live) tuple the corresponding toast rows
+will also be visible, so we do not need to recheck MVCC on them.
+There is one minor exception, which is that the optimizer sometimes
+looks at the boundaries of value ranges using SnapshotDirty, which
+could result in returning a newer value for query statistics; this
+would affect the query plan in rare cases, but not the correctness.
+The risk window is small since the stats look at the min and max values
+in the index, so the scan retrieves a tid then immediately uses it
+to look in the heap. It is unlikely that the tid could have been
+deleted, vacuumed and re-inserted in the time taken to look in the heap
+via direct tid access. So we ignore that scan type as a problem.
+
Other Things That Are Handy to Know
-----------------------------------
}
/*
+ * Check to see if we need to issue one final WAL record for this index,
+ * which may be needed for correctness on a hot standby node when non-MVCC
+ * index scans could take place.
+ *
* If the WAL is replayed in hot standby, the replay process needs to get
* cleanup locks on all index leaf pages, just as we've been doing here.
* However, we won't issue any WAL records about pages that have no items
if (ndeletable > 0)
{
/*
- * Notice that the issued XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM WAL record includes an
- * instruction to the replay code to get cleanup lock on all pages
- * between the previous lastBlockVacuumed and this page. This
- * ensures that WAL replay locks all leaf pages at some point.
+ * Notice that the issued XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM WAL record includes
+ * all information to the replay code to allow it to get a cleanup
+ * lock on all pages between the previous lastBlockVacuumed and
+ * this page. This ensures that WAL replay locks all leaf pages at
+ * some point, which is important should non-MVCC scans be
+ * requested. This is currently unused on standby, but we record
+ * it anyway, so that the WAL contains the required information.
*
* Since we can visit leaf pages out-of-order when recursing,
* replay might end up locking such pages an extra time, but it
btree_xlog_vacuum(XLogReaderState *record)
{
XLogRecPtr lsn = record->EndRecPtr;
- xl_btree_vacuum *xlrec = (xl_btree_vacuum *) XLogRecGetData(record);
Buffer buffer;
Page page;
BTPageOpaque opaque;
+#ifdef UNUSED
+ xl_btree_vacuum *xlrec = (xl_btree_vacuum *) XLogRecGetData(record);
/*
+ * This section of code is thought to be no longer needed, after analysis
+ * of the calling paths. It is retained to allow the code to be reinstated
+ * if a flaw is revealed in that thinking.
+ *
+ * If we are running non-MVCC scans using this index we need to do some
+ * additional work to ensure correctness, which is known as a "pin scan"
+ * described in more detail in next paragraphs. We used to do the extra
+ * work in all cases, whereas we now avoid that work in most cases. If
+ * lastBlockVacuumed is set to InvalidBlockNumber then we skip the
+ * additional work required for the pin scan.
+ *
+ * Avoiding this extra work is important since it requires us to touch
+ * every page in the index, so is an O(N) operation. Worse, it is an
+ * operation performed in the foreground during redo, so it delays
+ * replication directly.
+ *
* If queries might be active then we need to ensure every leaf page is
* unpinned between the lastBlockVacuumed and the current block, if there
* are any. This prevents replay of the VACUUM from reaching the stage of
* isn't yet consistent; so we need not fear reading still-corrupt blocks
* here during crash recovery.
*/
- if (HotStandbyActiveInReplay())
+ if (HotStandbyActiveInReplay() && BlockNumberIsValid(xlrec->lastBlockVacuumed))
{
RelFileNode thisrnode;
BlockNumber thisblkno;
* XXX we don't actually need to read the block, we just need to
* confirm it is unpinned. If we had a special call into the
* buffer manager we could optimise this so that if the block is
- * not in shared_buffers we confirm it as unpinned.
+ * not in shared_buffers we confirm it as unpinned. Optimizing
+ * this is now moot, since in most cases we avoid the scan.
*/
buffer = XLogReadBufferExtended(thisrnode, MAIN_FORKNUM, blkno,
RBM_NORMAL_NO_LOG);
}
}
}
+#endif
/*
* Like in btvacuumpage(), we need to take a cleanup lock on every leaf
* The WAL record can represent deletion of any number of index tuples on a
* single index page when executed by VACUUM.
*
- * The correctness requirement for applying these changes during recovery is
- * that we must do one of these two things for every block in the index:
+ * For MVCC scans, lastBlockVacuumed will be set to InvalidBlockNumber.
+ * For a non-MVCC index scans there is an additional correctness requirement
+ * for applying these changes during recovery, which is that we must do one
+ * of these two things for every block in the index:
* * lock the block for cleanup and apply any required changes
* * EnsureBlockUnpinned()
* The purpose of this is to ensure that no index scans started before we
projects / thirdparty / postgresql.git / commitdiff
