On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > One problem I see is length of time before freezing multis: they live >> > for far too long, causing the SLRU files to eat way too much disk space. >> > I ran burnmulti in a loop, creating multis of 3 members each, with a min >> > freeze age of 50 million, and this leads to ~770 files in >> > pg_multixact/offsets and ~2900 files in pg_multixact/members. Each file >> > is 32 pages long. 256kB apiece. Probably enough to be bothersome. >> > >> > I think for computing the freezing point for multis, we should slash >> > min_freeze_age by 10 or something like that. Or just set a hardcoded >> > one million. >> >> Yeah. Since we expect mxids to be composed at a much lower rate than >> xids, we can keep pg_multixact small without needing to increase the >> rate of full table scans. However, it seems to me that we ought to >> have GUCs for mxid_freeze_table_age and mxid_freeze_min_age. There's >> no principled way to derive those values from the corresponding values >> for XIDs, and I can't see any reason to suppose that we know how to >> auto-tune brand new values better than we know how to auto-tune their >> XID equivalents that we've had for years. >> >> One million is probably a reasonable default for mxid_freeze_min_age, though. > > I didn't want to propose having new GUCs, but if there's no love for my > idea of deriving it from the Xid freeze policy, I guess it's the only > solution. Just keep in mind we will need to back-patch these new GUCs > to 9.3. Are there objections to this? > > Also, what would be good names? Peter E. complained recently about the > word MultiXactId being exposed in some error messages; maybe "mxid" is > too short an abbreviation of that. Perhaps > multixactid_freeze_min_age = 1 million > multixactid_freeze_table_age = 3 million > ? > I imagine this stuff would be described somewhere in the docs, perhaps > within the "routine maintenance" section somewhere.
Yeah, this stuff is definitely underdocumented relative to vacuum right now. As far as back-patching the GUCs, my thought would be to back-patch them but mark them GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE in 9.3, so we don't have to touch the default postgresql.conf. Also, while multixactid_freeze_min_age should be low, perhaps a million as you suggest, multixactid_freeze_table_age should NOT be lowered to 3 million or anything like it. If you do that, people who are actually doing lots of row locking will start getting many more full-table scans. We want to avoid that at all cost. I'd probably make the default the same as for vacuum_freeze_table_age, so that mxids only cause extra full-table scans if they're being used more quickly than xids. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers