From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v68 |
Date: | 2022-04-05 15:49:36 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYohxsmJqrWzs1PgxXuNWJDmEkztusfOXjzmFD0AOKphQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> I think all this is going to achieve is to making code more complicated.
> There
> is a *single* non-assert use of accessed_across_databases and now a single
> assertion involving it.
>
> What would having PGSTAT_KIND_CLUSTER and PGSTAT_KIND_DATABASE achieve?
>
So, I decided to see what this would look like; the results are attached,
portions of it also inlined below.
I'll admit this does introduce a terminology problem - but IMO these words
are much more meaningful to the reader and code than the existing
booleans. I'm hopeful we can bikeshed something agreeable as I'm strongly
in favor of making this change.
The ability to create defines for subsets nicely resolves the problem that
CLUSTER and DATABASE (now OBJECT to avoid DATABASE conflict in PgStat_Kind)
are generally related together - they are now grouped under the DYNAMIC
label (variable, if you want) while all of the fixed entries get associated
with GLOBAL. Thus the majority of usages, since accessed_across_databases
is rare, end up being either DYNAMIC or GLOBAL. The presence of any other
category should give one pause. We could add an ALL define if we ever
decide to consolidate the API - but for now it's largely used to ensure
that stats of one type don't get processed by the other. The boolean fixed
does that well enough but this just seems much cleaner and more
understandable to me. Though having made up the terms and model myself,
that isn't too surprising.
The only existing usage of accessed_across_databases is in the negative
form, which translates to excluding objects, but only those from other
actual databases.
@@ -909,7 +904,7 @@ pgstat_build_snapshot(void)
*/
if (p->key.dboid != MyDatabaseId &&
p->key.dboid != InvalidOid &&
- !kind_info->accessed_across_databases)
+ kind_info->kind_group == PGSTAT_OBJECT)
continue;
The only other usage of something other than GLOBAL or DYNAMIC is the
restriction on the behavior of reset_single_counter, which also has to be
an object in the current database (the later condition being enforced by
the presence of a valid object oid I presume). The replacement for this
below is not behavior-preserving, the proposed behavior I believe we agree
is correct though.
@@ -652,7 +647,7 @@ pgstat_reset_single_counter(PgStat_Kind kind, Oid
objoid)
- Assert(!pgstat_kind_info_for(kind)->fixed_amount);
+ Assert(pgstat_kind_info_for(kind)->kind_group == PGSTAT_OBJECT);
Everything else is a straight conversion of fixed_amount to CLUSTER+OBJECT
@@ -728,7 +723,7 @@ pgstat_fetch_entry(PgStat_Kind kind, Oid dboid, Oid
objoid)
- AssertArg(!kind_info->fixed_amount);
+ AssertArg(kind_info->kind_group == PGSTAT_DYNAMIC);
and !fixed_amount to GLOBAL
@@ -825,7 +820,7 @@ pgstat_get_stat_snapshot_timestamp(bool *have_snapshot)
bool
pgstat_exists_entry(PgStat_Kind kind, Oid dboid, Oid objoid)
{
- if (pgstat_kind_info_for(kind)->fixed_amount)
+ if (pgstat_kind_info_for(kind)->kind_group == PGSTAT_GLOBAL)
return true;
return pgstat_get_entry_ref(kind, dboid, objoid, false, NULL) != NULL;
David J.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
rework-using-enums.diff | application/octet-stream | 8.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-05 15:53:04 | Re: Separate the result of \watch for each query execution (psql) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-04-05 15:48:05 | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |