From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com, ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v66 |
Date: | 2022-04-05 20:40:19 |
Message-ID: | 20220405204019.6yj7ocmpw352c2u5@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-04-02 01:16:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I just noticed that the code doesn't appear to actually work like that right
> now. Whenever the timeout is reached, pgstat_report_stat() is called with
> force = true.
>
> And even if the backend is busy running queries, once there's contention, the
> next invocation of pgstat_report_stat() will return the timeout relative to
> pendin_since, which then will trigger a force report via a very short timeout
> soon.
>
> It might actually make sense to only ever return PGSTAT_RETRY_MIN_INTERVAL
> (with a slightly different name) from pgstat_report_stat() when blocked
> (limiting the max reporting delay for an idle connection) and to continue
> calling pgstat_report_stat(force = true). But to only trigger force
> "internally" in pgstat_report_stat() when PGSTAT_MAX_INTERVAL is reached.
>
> I think that'd mean we'd report after max PGSTAT_RETRY_MIN_INTERVAL in an idle
> connection, and try reporting every PGSTAT_RETRY_MIN_INTERVAL (increasing up
> to PGSTAT_MAX_INTERVAL when blocked) on busy connections.
>
> Makes sense?
I tried to come up with a workload producing a *lot* of stats (multiple
function calls within a transaction, multiple transactions pipelined) and ran
it with 1000 clients (on a machine with 2 x (10 cores / 20 threads)). To
reduce overhead I set
default_transaction_isolation=repeatable read
track_activities=false
MVCC Snapshot acquisition is the clear bottleneck otherwise, followed by
pgstat_report_activity() (which, as confusing as it may sound, is independent
of this patch).
I do see a *small* amount of contention if I lower PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL to
1ms. Too small to ever be captured in pg_stat_activity.wait_event, but just
about visible in a profiler.
Which leads me to conclude we can simplify the logic significantly. Here's my
current comment explaining the logic:
* Unless called with 'force', pending stats updates are flushed happen once
* per PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL (1000ms). When not forced, stats flushes do not
* block on lock acquisition, except if stats updates have been pending for
* longer than PGSTAT_MAX_INTERVAL (60000ms).
*
* Whenever pending stats updates remain at the end of pgstat_report_stat() a
* suggested idle timeout is returned. Currently this is always
* PGSTAT_IDLE_INTERVAL (10000ms). Callers can use the returned time to set up
* a timeout after which to call pgstat_report_stat(true), but are not
* required to to do so.
Comments?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-04-05 20:51:12 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v69 |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-04-05 20:29:38 | Re: should vacuum's first heap pass be read-only? |