Re: Fix parallel vacuum buffer usage reporting

From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Alena Rybakina <lena(dot)ribackina(at)yandex(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix parallel vacuum buffer usage reporting
Date: 2024-05-10 10:25:58
Message-ID: CAN55FZ0RQZHTe=UPGgYLJw06V6ZrtNVrj1egYMtu7__bWxA9=A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Thank you for working on this!

On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 06:37, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for further testing! I've pushed the patch.

I realized a behaviour change while looking at 'Use pgBufferUsage for
block reporting in analyze' thread [1]. Since that change applies here
as well, I thought it is better to mention it here.

Before this commit, VacuumPageMiss did not count the blocks if its
read was already completed by other backends [2]. Now,
'pgBufferUsage.local_blks_read + pgBufferUsage.shared_blks_read'
counts every block attempted to be read; possibly double counting if
someone else has already completed the read. I do not know which
behaviour is correct but I wanted to mention this.

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAO6_Xqr__kTTCLkftqS0qSCm-J7_xbRG3Ge2rWhucxQJMJhcRA%40mail.gmail.com

[2] In the WaitReadBuffers() function, see comment:
/*
* Skip this block if someone else has already completed it. If an
* I/O is already in progress in another backend, this will wait for
* the outcome: either done, or something went wrong and we will
* retry.
*/

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-05-10 10:40:35 Re: Use pgBufferUsage for block reporting in analyze
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2024-05-10 09:53:10 Re: consider -Wmissing-variable-declarations