| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |
| Date: | 2020-10-13 03:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3408925.1602561305@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have pushed this but it failed in one of the BF. See
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=florican&dt=2020-10-13%2003%3A07%3A25
> The failure is shown below and I am analyzing it. See, if you can
> provide any insights.
It's not very clear what spill_count actually counts (and the
documentation sure does nothing to clarify that), but if it has anything
to do with WAL volume, the explanation might be that florican is 32-bit.
All the animals that have passed that test so far are 64-bit.
> The reason for this problem could be that there is some transaction
> (say by autovacuum) which happened interleaved with this transaction
> and committed before this one.
I can believe that idea too, but would it not have resulted in a
diff in spill_txns as well?
In short, I'm not real convinced that a stable result is possible in this
test. Maybe you should just test for spill_txns and spill_count being
positive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-13 04:24:17 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-13 03:52:44 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |