| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay |
| Date: | 2024-06-10 19:20:16 |
| Message-ID: | ZmdR8NLjxsrUnsnx@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 05:48:22PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:36:42AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I wonder if we should also
>> surface the effective cost limit for each autovacuum worker.
>
> I'm not sure about it as I think that it could be misleading: one could query
> pg_stat_progress_vacuum and conclude that the time_delayed he is seeing is
> due to _this_ cost_limit. But that's not necessary true as the cost_limit could
> have changed multiple times since the vacuum started. So, unless there is
> frequent sampling on pg_stat_progress_vacuum, displaying the time_delayed and
> the cost_limit could be misleadind IMHO.
Well, that's true for the delay, too, right (at least as of commit
7d71d3d)?
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-06-10 19:26:16 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-06-10 19:05:32 | Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility |