|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: automatic analyze: readahead - add "IO read time" log message|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> * Tomas Vondra (tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com) wrote:
> > Thanks. I'll do some testing/benchmarking once my machines are free, in
> > a couple days perhaps. But as I said before, I don't expect this to
> > behave very differently from other places that already do prefetching.
> Agreed, but would still be nice to see test results beyond just what
> I've done.
Any chance you were able to run those tests..?
> > FWIW I wonder if this should be tracked separately in the CF app, as
> > it's very different from the original "add some logging" patch, which
> > makes the CF entry rather misleading.
> I've gone ahead and updated the CF entry for this to hopefully make it
> clearer for those interested in looking at it. I'll try to come back to
> this in the next CF, ideally we'd at least get someone else to take a
> look at the code beyond me. :) (Obviously, you looked at it some, but
> wasn't really clear if you were alright with it or if you felt it needed
> more review.)
I've updated the patch to leverage Tom's introduction of
TimestatmpDifferenceMilliseconds, which simplifies things a bit (and I
don't think we need to worry about an analyze taking over 25 days...)
and generally rebased this up to current HEAD.
Would be great to get a review / comments from others as to if there's
any concerns. I'll admit that it seems reasonably straight-forward to
me, but hey, I wrote most of it, so that's not really a fair
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2021-01-13 21:24:23||Re: Executing inet_server_addr/port() in parallel workers|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2021-01-13 21:16:04||Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other|