Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:49 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 16:04, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special
> > > > about this. In an ideal world, this should be done once and not for
> > > > each worker but I guess it doesn't matter too much. I am not sure if
> > > > it is worth adding a comment for this, what do you think?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree with you. If the differences were considerably large probably
> > > we would do something but I think we don't need to anything at this
> > > time.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough, can you once check this in back-branches as this needs to
> > be backpatched? I will do that once by myself as well.
>
> I've done the same test with HEAD of both REL_12_STABLE and
> REL_11_STABLE. I think the patch needs to be backpatched to PG11 where
> parallel index creation was introduced. I've attached the patches
> for PG12 and PG11 I used for this test for reference.
>

Thanks, I will once again verify and push this tomorrow if there are
no other comments.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com