| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ilya Gladyshev <i(dot)gladyshev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Per query FDW network stat collection |
| Date: | 2021-08-24 09:19:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_Yx-NztOTcqbo9M2WmRqa7TAVfEBN+6ZnBr=JXUOttzkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:12 PM Ilya Gladyshev
<i(dot)gladyshev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> I have implemented per query network stat collection for FDW. It is done
> in a similar way to how buffer and WAL stats are collected and it can be
> seen with a new NETWORK option for explain command:
>
> explain (analyze, network) insert into itrtest values (2, 'blah');
>
> QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Insert on itrtest (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=0 width=0) (actual
> time=0.544..0.544 rows=0 loops=1)
> Network: FDW bytes sent=197 received=72, wait_time=0.689
> [...]
It sound like a really useful metric to have.
However I'm not sure that having a new "network" option is the best
way for that. It seems confusing as IIUC it won't be catching all
network activity (like fe/be activity, or network disk...) but only
FDW activity. I think it would be better to have those information
retrieved when using the verbose option rather than a new one.
Similarly, I'm afraid that INSTRUMENT_NETWORK could be misleading,
although I don't have any better proposal right now.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ilya Gladyshev | 2021-08-24 09:57:09 | Re: Per query FDW network stat collection |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-08-24 09:13:44 | remove internal support in pgcrypto? |