Re: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits
Date: 2025-02-28 08:44:20
Message-ID: Z8F3ZH0kLeYz4yg7@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 02:41:34PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> With smaller records, the loop can become hotter, can't it? Also,
> there can be a high number of WAL senders on a single node, and I've
> heard of some customers with complex logical decoding deployments with
> dozens of logical WAL senders. Isn't there a risk of having this code
> path become a point of contention? It seems to me that we should
> benchmark this change more carefully, perhaps even reduce the
> frequency of the report calls.

One idea here would be to have on a single host one server with a set
of N pg_receivewal processes dumping their WAL segments into a tmpfs,
while a single session generates a bunch of records with a minimal
size using pg_logical_emit_message(). Monitoring the maximum
replication lag with pg_stat_replication and looking at some perf
profiles of the cluster should show how these stats reports affect the
replication setup efficiency.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Orlov 2025-02-28 08:55:45 Re: Proposal: Limitations of palloc inside checkpointer
Previous Message Benoit Lobréau 2025-02-28 08:28:13 Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication