Changing the autovacuum launcher scheduling; oldest table first algorithm

On 02/28/2018 12:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

Hi,

I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
summarize it here.

If there is even one database that is at risk of wraparound, currently
AV launcher selects the database having the oldest datfrozenxid until
all tables in that database have been vacuumed. This leads that tables
on other database can bloat and not be frozen because other database
are not selected by AV launcher. It makes things worse if the database
has a large table that takes a long time to be vacuumed.

Attached patch changes the AV launcher scheduling algorithm based on
the proposed idea by Robert so that it selects a database first that
has the oldest table when the database is at risk of wraparound. For
detail of the algorithm please refer to [2].

In this algorithm, the running AV workers advertise the next
datfrozenxid on the shared memory that we will have. That way, AV
launcher can select a database that has the oldest table in the
database cluster. However, this algorithm doesn't support the case
where the age of next datfrozenxid gets greater than
autovacum_vacuum_max_age. This case can happen if users set
autovacvuum_vacuum_max_age to small value and vacuuming the whole
database takes a long time. But since it's not a common case and it
doesn't degrade than current behavior even if this happened, I think
it's not a big problem.

Feedback is very welcome.

[1] /messages/by-id/0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F8A4DC6@G01JPEXMBYT05
[2] /messages/by-id/CA+TgmobT3m=+dU5HF3VGVqiZ2O+v6P5wN1Gj+Prq+hj7dAm9AQ@mail.gmail.com

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

Hello!
I`ve tried to compile your patch on Fedora24 with gcc 6.3.1 20161221:

gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fexcess-precision=standard -g -g3 -O0 -I../../../src/include
-D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o autovacuum.o autovacuum.c
In file included from ../../../src/include/postgres.h:46:0,
from autovacuum.c:62:
autovacuum.c: In function ‘get_next_xid_bounds’:
autovacuum.c:1979:9: warning: implicit declaration of function
‘TransactionIdIsVaild’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
Assert(TransactionIdIsVaild(frozenxid));
^
../../../src/include/c.h:713:7: note: in definition of macro ‘Trap’
if (condition) \
^~~~~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1979:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘Assert’
Assert(TransactionIdIsVaild(frozenxid));
^~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1980:28: error: ‘minmutli’ undeclared (first use in this
function)
Assert(MultiXactIdIsValid(minmutli));
^
../../../src/include/c.h:713:7: note: in definition of macro ‘Trap’
if (condition) \
^~~~~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1980:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘Assert’
Assert(MultiXactIdIsValid(minmutli));
^~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1980:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘MultiXactIdIsValid’
Assert(MultiXactIdIsValid(minmutli));
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1980:28: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only
once for each function it appears in
Assert(MultiXactIdIsValid(minmutli));
^
../../../src/include/c.h:713:7: note: in definition of macro ‘Trap’
if (condition) \
^~~~~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1980:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘Assert’
Assert(MultiXactIdIsValid(minmutli));
^~~~~~
autovacuum.c:1980:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘MultiXactIdIsValid’
Assert(MultiXactIdIsValid(minmutli));
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<builtin>: recipe for target 'autovacuum.o' failed
make[3]: *** [autovacuum.o] Error 1

--
Grigory Smolkin
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Hi,

On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
summarize it here.

This is a new patch submitted to CF 2018-03. As that's the last CF for
v11, and this patch isn't trivial, I propose to instead move this to the
next CF.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:

Hi,

On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
summarize it here.

This is a new patch submitted to CF 2018-03. As that's the last CF for
v11, and this patch isn't trivial, I propose to instead move this to the
next CF.

Thank you for comment.
I recently added this patch to the current CF but discussion for
design has started from the end of Jan. So I don't think this patch is
design phase but should I move it to the next CF?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:

Hi,

On 2018-02-28 18:04:27 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

I've created the new thread for the changing AV launcher scheduling.
The problem of AV launcher scheduling is described on [1] but I
summarize it here.

This is a new patch submitted to CF 2018-03. As that's the last CF for
v11, and this patch isn't trivial, I propose to instead move this to the
next CF.

Thank you for comment.
I recently added this patch to the current CF but discussion for
design has started from the end of Jan. So I don't think this patch is
design phase but should I move it to the next CF?

I now see situation of the current CF, and agreed with you. Will move
this to the next CF.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

Hello

I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads
brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never
completed:

/messages/by-id/20130124215715.GE4528@alvh.no-ip.org

In that thread I posted a patch to implement a prioritisation scheme for
autovacuum, based on an equation which was still under discussion when
I abandoned it. Chris Browne proposed a crazy equation to mix in both
XID age and fraction of dead tuples; probably that idea is worth
studying further. I tried to implement that in my patch but I probably
didn't do it correctly (because, as I recall, it failed to work as
expected). Nowadays I think we would also consider the multixact freeze
age, too.

Maybe that's worth giving a quick look in case some of the ideas there
are useful for the patches now being proposed.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

Hello

I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads
brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never
completed:

/messages/by-id/20130124215715.GE4528@alvh.no-ip.org

Thank you for sharing the thread.

In that thread I posted a patch to implement a prioritisation scheme for
autovacuum, based on an equation which was still under discussion when
I abandoned it. Chris Browne proposed a crazy equation to mix in both
XID age and fraction of dead tuples; probably that idea is worth
studying further. I tried to implement that in my patch but I probably
didn't do it correctly (because, as I recall, it failed to work as
expected). Nowadays I think we would also consider the multixact freeze
age, too.

Maybe that's worth giving a quick look in case some of the ideas there
are useful for the patches now being proposed.

Yeah, that's definitely useful for the patches. I'll look at this and
will discuss that here.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

Hello

I haven't read your respective patches yet, but both these threads
brought to memory a patch I proposed a few years ago that I never
completed:

/messages/by-id/20130124215715.GE4528@alvh.no-ip.org

Thank you for sharing the thread.

In that thread I posted a patch to implement a prioritisation scheme for
autovacuum, based on an equation which was still under discussion when
I abandoned it. Chris Browne proposed a crazy equation to mix in both
XID age and fraction of dead tuples; probably that idea is worth
studying further. I tried to implement that in my patch but I probably
didn't do it correctly (because, as I recall, it failed to work as
expected). Nowadays I think we would also consider the multixact freeze
age, too.

Maybe that's worth giving a quick look in case some of the ideas there
are useful for the patches now being proposed.

Yeah, that's definitely useful for the patches. I'll look at this and
will discuss that here.

I read that discussion. If I understand correctly, the patch proposed
in that discussion mainly focuses on table-selection algorithm for
each AV worker. But the patch I proposed also changes it but the main
part of this patch is to change the database-selection algorithm by AV
launcher (sorry, maybe the subject leads misleading). The problem I'd
like to deal with is, when there is at least one database needing
anti-wraparound vacuum it concentrates launching new AV workers on one
database.

If we change the table-selection algorithm to the "oldest table first"
algorithm in that case, we can deal with that problem by this patch.
However, I think it's worthwhile to consider another table-selection
algorithm such as the proposal on that old thread. So I think it would
be better to think these issue separately. That is, we can change the
database-selection algorithm in order to prevent the concentration
problem while not changing table-selection algorithm.

This brought me another idea; having AV workers report its autovacuum
results at its AV worker slot so that they can teach autovacuum status
to AV launcher. For example, each AV worker can report the following
information.

* Database oid
* The number of tables needing vacuum.
* The number of vacuumed tables.
* The number of skipped tables due to being processed by other AV workers.
* Timestamp of last update

If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
being vacuumed by other worker, AV launcher can launches new one to
other database.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:20:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
being vacuumed by other worker, AV launcher can launches new one to
other database.

I am not completely sure what we want to do with this patch in
particular as there are many approaches and things which can be
discussed. For now, the latest patch proposed does not apply, so I am
moving it to next CF, waiting for its author.
--
Michael

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:42 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 04:20:53PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

If there is an up-to-date information meaning either that there is no
tables needing vacuum or that there is only table needing vacuum but
being vacuumed by other worker, AV launcher can launches new one to
other database.

I am not completely sure what we want to do with this patch in
particular as there are many approaches and things which can be
discussed. For now, the latest patch proposed does not apply, so I am
moving it to next CF, waiting for its author.

Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:

Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.

I would have suggested to mark the patch as returned with feedback
instead as the thing does not apply for some time now, and the author
has been notified about a rebase.
--
Michael

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:48 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:

Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.

I would have suggested to mark the patch as returned with feedback
instead as the thing does not apply for some time now, and the author
has been notified about a rebase.

Agreed and sorry for the late reply.

The design of this patch would need to be reconsidered based on
suggestions and discussions we had before. I'll propose it again after
considerations.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:05 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:48 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:21:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:

Nothing changed since then, but also the patch got not enough review to say
that there was substantial feedback. I'll move it to the next CF.

I would have suggested to mark the patch as returned with feedback
instead as the thing does not apply for some time now, and the author
has been notified about a rebase.

Agreed and sorry for the late reply.

The design of this patch would need to be reconsidered based on
suggestions and discussions we had before. I'll propose it again after
considerations.

Well, taking into account this information, then yes, it makes sense and I'll
mark it as "Returned with feedback", thanks!