From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: log_autovacuum in Postgres 14 -- ordering issue |
Date: | 2021-08-27 17:52:13 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznW0FNxSVQMSRazAMYNfZ6DR_gr5WE78hc6E1CBkkJpzw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:07 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I generally like the idea though I'm not sure about changing things in
> v13 as there's likely code out there that's already parsing that data
> and it might suddenly break if this was changed.
Agreed -- I won't backpatch anything to v13.
> Given that such code would need to be adjusted for v14 anyway, I don't
> really see changing it in v14 as as being an issue (nor do I feel that
> it's even a big concern at this point in the release cycle, though
> perhaps others feel differently).
BTW, I noticed one thing about the track_io_time stuff. Sometimes it
looks like this:
I/O timings:
i.e., it doesn't show anything at all after the colon. This happens
because the instrumentation indicates that no time was spent on either
read I/O or write I/O.
I now wonder if we should just unconditionally report both things
(both "read:" and "write:"), without regard for whether or not they're
non-zero. (We'd do the same thing with ANALYZE's equivalent code too,
if we actually did this -- same issue there.)
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-08-27 18:16:01 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-27 17:30:07 | Re: Fwd: Big Performance drop of Exceptions in UDFs between V11.2 and 13.4 |