Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}

From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}
Date: 2023-10-05 10:25:36
Message-ID: CAN55FZ3tiZjYozcuN-8V+h2WiCduWo3geTJtiWv3LEnYnUQe3Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 19:44, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Given that, I'm inclined to agree that this is a bug. But we might
> need to go through and make sure all of the code that deals with these
> counters is on the same page about what the values represent. Maybe
> there is code lurking somewhere that thinks these counters are only
> supposed to include "shared" rather than, as the fragment above
> suggests, "shared/local".

Thank you for the guidance.

What do you think about the second patch, counting extend calls'
timings in blk_write_time? In my opinion if something increments
{shared|local}_blks_written, then it needs to be counted in
blk_write_time too. I am not sure why it is decided like that.

Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-10-05 10:54:20 Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2023-10-05 10:06:43 RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node