From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: per backend I/O statistics |
Date: | 2025-01-18 08:53:31 |
Message-ID: | Z4tsCxa0dG6FdA4h@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 10:23:48AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Please find attached a patch implementing the ideas above, meaning:
>
> - It creates a new PendingBackendStats variable
> - It uses this variable to increment and flush per backend pending IO statistics
>
> That way we get rid of the memory allocation for pending IO statistics.
>
> One remark: a special case has been added in pgstat_flush_pending_entries(). The
> reason is that while the per backend stats are "variable-numbered" stats, it could
> be that their pending stats are not part of pgStatPending. This is currently the
> case (with this patch) as the per backend pending IO stats are not tracked with
> pgstat_prep_backend_pending() and friends anymore.
+ /*
+ * There is a special case for some pending stats that are tracked in
+ * PendingBackendStats. It's possible that those have not been flushed
+ * above, hence the extra check here.
+ */
+ if (!pg_memory_is_all_zeros(&PendingBackendStats,
+ sizeof(struct PgStat_BackendPending)))
+ {
+ PgStat_EntryRef *entry_ref;
+
+ entry_ref = pgstat_get_entry_ref(PGSTAT_KIND_BACKEND, InvalidOid,
+ MyProcNumber, false, NULL);
Hmm. Such special complexities in pgstat.c are annoying. There is
a stupid thing I am wondering here. For the WAL stats, why couldn't
we place some calls of pgstat_prep_backend_pending() in strategic
places like XLogBeginInsert() to force all the allocation steps of the
pending entry to happen before we would enter the critical sections
when doing a WAL insertion? As far as I can see, there is a special
case with 2PC where XLogBeginInsert() could be called in a critical
section, but that seems to be the only one at quick glance.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey Tatarintsev | 2025-01-18 08:59:17 | Re: create subscription with (origin = none, copy_data = on) |
Previous Message | Gilles Darold | 2025-01-18 07:24:04 | Re: Fwd: Re: proposal: schema variables |