|From:||Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 05:27:10PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 4:52 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the patches. I spent some time on reviewing v17 patch set
>> and here are my comments:
Thanks for reviewing!
>> 1. I think the custodian process needs documentation - it needs a
>> definition in glossary.sgml and perhaps a dedicated page describing
>> what tasks it takes care of.
Good catch. I added this in v18. I stopped short of adding a dedicated
page to describe the tasks because 1) there are no parameters for the
custodian and 2) AFAICT none of its tasks are described in the docs today.
>> + LWLockReleaseAll();
>> + ConditionVariableCancelSleep();
>> + AbortBufferIO();
>> + UnlockBuffers();
>> + ReleaseAuxProcessResources(false);
>> + AtEOXact_Buffers(false);
>> + AtEOXact_SMgr();
>> + AtEOXact_Files(false);
>> + AtEOXact_HashTables(false);
>> Do we need all of these in the exit path? Isn't the stuff that
>> ShutdownAuxiliaryProcess() does enough for the custodian process?
>> AFAICS, the custodian process uses LWLocks (which the
>> ShutdownAuxiliaryProcess() takes care of) and it doesn't access shared
>> buffers and so on.
>> Having said that, I'm fine to keep them for future use and all of
>> those cleanup functions exit if nothing related occurs.
Yeah, I don't think we need a few of these. In v18, I've kept the
>> + * Advertise out latch that backends can use to wake us up while we're
>> Typo - %s/out/our
>> 4. Is it a good idea to add log messages in the DoCustodianTasks()
>> loop? Maybe at a debug level? The log message can say the current task
>> the custodian is processing. And/Or setting the custodian's status on
>> the ps display is also a good idea IMO.
I'd like to pick these up in a new thread if/when this initial patch set is
committed. The tasks already do some logging, and the checkpointer process
doesn't update the ps display for these tasks today.
>> 0002 and 0003:
>> +DO $$
>> I think we need to ensure that there are some snapshot files before
>> the checkpoint. Otherwise, it may happen that the above test case
>> exits without the custodian process doing anything.
>> 2. I think the best way to test the custodian process code is by
>> adding a TAP test module to see actually the custodian process kicks
>> in. Perhaps, add elog(DEBUGX,...) messages to various custodian
>> process functions and see if we see the logs in server logs.
The test appears to reliably create snapshot and mapping files, so if the
directories are empty at some point after the checkpoint at the end, we can
be reasonably certain the custodian took action. I didn't add explicit
checks that there are files in the directories before the checkpoint
because a concurrent checkpoint could make such checks unreliable.
>> I think the 0004 patch can be merged into 0001, 0002 and 0003 patches.
>> Otherwise the patch LGTM.
I'm keeping this one separate because I've received conflicting feedback
about the idea.
>> 1. I think we can trivially extend the custodian process to remove any
>> future WAL files on the old timeline, something like the attached
>> 0001-Move-removal-of-future-WAL-files-on-the-old-timeline.text file).
>> While this offloads the recovery a bit, the server may archive such
>> WAL files before the custodian removes them. We can do a bit more to
>> stop the server from archiving such WAL files, but that needs more
>> coding. I don't think we need to do all that now, perhaps, we can give
>> it a try once the basic custodian stuff gets in.
>> 2. Moving RemovePgTempFiles() to the custodian can bring up the server
>> soon. The idea is that the postmaster just renames the temp
>> directories and informs the custodian so that it can go delete such
>> temp files and directories. I have personally seen cases where the
>> server spent a good amount of time cleaning up temp files. We can park
>> it for later.
>> 3. Moving RemoveOldXlogFiles() to the custodian can make checkpoints faster.
>> 4. PreallocXlogFiles() - if we ever have plans to make pre-allocation
>> more aggressive (pre-allocate more than 1 WAL file), perhaps letting
>> custodian do that is a good idea. Again, too many tasks for a single
I definitely want to do #2. І have some patches for that upthread, but I
removed them for now based on Simon's feedback. I intend to pick that up
in a new thread. I haven't thought too much about the others yet.
> Another comment:
> IIUC, there's no custodian_delay GUC as we want to avoid unnecessary
> wakeups for power savings (being discussed in the other thread).
> However, can it happen that the custodian missed to capture SetLatch
> wakeups by other backends? In other words, can the custodian process
> be sleeping when there's work to do?
I'm not aware of any way this could happen, but if there is one, I think we
should treat it as a bug instead of relying on the custodian process to
periodically wake up and check for work to do.
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
|Next Message||David G. Johnston||2022-12-01 21:40:48||Re: Allow round() function to accept float and double precision|
|Previous Message||David Rowley||2022-12-01 21:37:33||Re: Questions regarding distinct operation implementation|