From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
Cc: | melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v70 |
Date: | 2022-04-06 09:11:04 |
Message-ID: | 20220406.181104.1023366645547337408.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Tue, 5 Apr 2022 20:00:08 -0700, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in
> Hi,
>
> Here comes v70:
> - extended / polished the architecture comment based on feedback from Melanie
> and David
> - other polishing as suggested by David
> - addressed the open issue around pgstat_report_stat(), as described in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220405204019.6yj7ocmpw352c2u5%40alap3.anarazel.de
> - while working on the above point, I noticed that hash_bytes() showed up
> noticeably in profiles, so I replaced it with a fixed-width function
> - found a few potential regression test instabilities by either *always*
> flushing in pgstat_report_stat(), or only flushing when force = true.
> - random minor improvements
> - reordered commits some
>
> I still haven't renamed pg_stat_exists_stat() yet - I'm leaning towards
> pg_stat_have_stats() or pg_stat_exists() right now. But it's an SQL function
> for testing, so it doesn't really matter.
>
> I think this is basically ready, minus a a few comment adjustments here and
> there. Unless somebody protests I'm planning to start pushing things tomorrow
> morning.
>
> It'll be a few hours to get to the main commit - but except for 0001 it
> doesn't make sense to push without intending to push later changes too. I
> might squash a few commits togther.
>
> There's lots that can be done once all this is in place, both simplifying
> pre-existing code and easy new features, but that's for a later release.
I'm not sure it's in time but..
(Sorry in advance for possible duplicate or pointless comments.)
0001: Looks fine.
0002:
All references to "stats collector" or alike looks like eliminated
after all of the 24 patches are applied. So this seems fine.
0003:
This is just moving around functions and variables. Looks fine.
0004:
I can see padding_pgstat_send and fun:pgstat_send in valgrind.supp
0005:
The function is changed later patch, and it looks fine.
0006:
I'm fine with the categorize for now.
+#define PGSTAT_KIND_LAST PGSTAT_KIND_WAL
+#define PGSTAT_NUM_KINDS (PGSTAT_KIND_LAST + 1)
The number of kinds is 10. And PGSTAT_NUM_KINDS is 11?
+ * Don't define an INVALID value so switch() statements can warn if some
+ * cases aren't covered. But define the first member to 1 so that
+ * uninitialized values can be detected more easily.
FWIW, I like this.
0007:
(mmm no comments)
0008:
+ xact_desc_stats(buf, "", parsed.nstats, parsed.stats);
+ xact_desc_stats(buf, "commit ", parsed.nstats, parsed.stats);
+ xact_desc_stats(buf, "abort ", parsed.nabortstats, parsed.abortstats);
I'm not sure I like this, but I don't object to this..
0009: (skipped)
0010:
(I didn't look this closer. The comments arised while looking other
patches.)
+pgstat_kind_from_str(char *kind_str)
I don't think I like "str" so much. Don't we spell it as
"pgstat_kind_from_name"?
0011:
Looks fine.
0012:
Looks like covering all related parts.
0013:
Just fine.
0014:
I bilieve it:p
0015:
Function attributes seems correct. Looks fine.
0016:
(skipped, but looks fine by a quick look.)
0017:
I don't find a problem with this.
0018: (skipped)
0019:
+my $og_stats = $datadir . '/' . "pg_stat" . '/' . "pgstat.stat";
It can be "$datadir/pg_stat/pgstat.stat" or $datadir . '/pgstat/pgstat.stat'.
Isn't it simpler?
0020-24:(I believe them:p)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-06 09:12:39 | Re: unlogged sequences |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-06 08:53:28 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |