Re: Fix pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() 's delay

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: bt21tanigaway <bt21tanigaway(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() 's delay
Date: 2021-10-08 15:28:57
Message-ID: 52ff4115-961c-7803-635f-d27b8e9b9ee2@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021/10/06 17:14, bt21tanigaway wrote:
> Thanks for your review.
>
>>> Thanks for the patch. Do we also need to do the change in
>>> HandleMainLoopInterrupts, HandleCheckpointerInterrupts,
>>> HandlePgArchInterrupts, HandleWalWriterInterrupts as we don't call
>>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() there?
>
>> Yeah, that's still some information that the user asked for.  Looking
>> at the things that have a PGPROC entry, should we worry about the main
>> loop of the logical replication launcher?
>
> ・Now, the target of “pg_log_backend_memory_contexts()” is “autovacuum launcher” and “logical replication launcher”.  I observed that the delay occurred only in “autovacuum launcher” not in “logical replication launcher”.
> ・”autovacuum launcher” used “HandleAutoVacLauncherInterrupts()” ( not including “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()” ) instead of “ProcessInterrupts() ( including “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()” ). “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()” will not be executed until the next “ProcessInterrupts()” is executed. So, I added “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()”.
> ・”logical replication launcher” uses only “ProcessInterrupts()”. So, We don’t have to fix it.

Yes.

>> IMHO, we can support all the processes which return a PGPROC entry by
>> both BackendPidGetProc and AuxiliaryPidGetProc where the
>> AuxiliaryPidGetProc would cover the following processes. I'm not sure
>> one is interested in the  memory context info of auxiliary processes.

I like this idea because it seems helpful at least for debug purpose.

> ・The purpose of this patch is to solve the delay problem, so I would like another patch to deal with “ BackendPidGetProc” and “AuxiliaryPidGetProc”.

+1 to improve those things separately.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-10-08 15:41:33 Re: pgbench bug candidate: negative "initial connection time"
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-10-08 15:19:44 Re: RFC: compression dictionaries for JSONB