Re: Is a pg_stat_force_next_flush() call sufficient for regression tests?

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is a pg_stat_force_next_flush() call sufficient for regression tests?
Date: 2023-07-04 02:29:24
Message-ID: 20230704.112924.1693682640969530760.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:45:52 +0200, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote in
> So I'm wondering if pg_stat_force_next_flush() is enough - AFAICS this
> only sets some flag for the *next* pgstat_report_stat() call, but how do
> we know that happens before the query execution?
>
> Shouldn't there be something like pg_stat_flush() that actually does the
> flushing, instead of just setting the flag?

The reason for the function is that pg_stat_flush() is supposed not to
be called within a transaction. AFAICS pg_stat_force_next_flush()
takes effect after a successfull transaction end and before the next
command execution.

To verify this, I put in an assertion to check that the flag gets
consumed before reading of pg_stat_io (a.diff), then ran pgbench with
the attached custom script. As expected, it didn't fire at all during
several trials. When I wrapped all lines in t.sql within a
begin-commit block, the assertion fired off immediately as a matter of
course.

Is there any chance concurrent backends or some other things can
actually hinder the backend from reusing buffers?

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment Content-Type Size
a.diff text/x-patch 1.0 KB
t.sql text/plain 90 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-07-04 03:12:26 Re: [PATCH] Extend the length of BackgroundWorker.bgw_library_name
Previous Message Ibrar Ahmed 2023-07-04 02:27:19 Re: Commitfest manager for July