On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 4:31 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 4:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > I tend to suspect that VACUUM_FSM_EVERY_PAGES is fundamentally the > > wrong idea. If it's such a good idea then why not apply it all the > > time? That is, why not apply it independently of whether nindexes==0 > > in the current VACUUM operation? (You know, just like with > > FAILSAFE_EVERY_PAGES.) > > Actually, I suppose that we couldn't apply it independently of > nindexes==0. Then we'd call FreeSpaceMapVacuumRange() before our > second pass over the heap takes place for those LP_DEAD-containing > heap pages scanned since the last round of index/heap vacuuming took > place (or since VACUUM began). We need to make sure that the FSM has > the most recent possible information known to VACUUM, which would > break if we applied VACUUM_FSM_EVERY_PAGES rules when nindexes > 0. > > Even still, the design of VACUUM_FSM_EVERY_PAGES seems questionable to me.
I now see I misunderstood and my earlier email was wrong. I didn't notice that we only use VACUUM_FSM_EVERY_PAGES if nindexes ==0. So, in master, we call FreeSpaceMapVacuumRange() always after a round of index vacuuming and periodically if there are no indexes. It seems like you are asking whether not we should vacuum the FSM at a different cadence for the no indexes case (and potentially count blocks actually vacuumed instead of blocks considered). And it seems like Robert is asking whether or not we should FreeSpaceMapVacuumRange() more frequently than after index vacuuming in the nindexes > 0 case. Other than the overhead of the actual vacuuming of the FSM, what are the potential downsides of knowing about freespace sooner? It could change what pages are inserted to. What are the possible undesirable side effects? - Melanie
