Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pokurev(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp, Vinayak Pokale <vinpokale(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Date: 2015-12-11 00:41:04
Message-ID: 566A1BA0.70707@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015/12/10 20:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> AIUI, the counts published via stats collector are updated asynchronously
>> w.r.t. operations they count and mostly as aggregate figures. For example,
>> PgStat_StatTabEntry.blocks_fetched. IOW, we never see
>> pg_statio_all_tables.heap_blks_read updating as a scan reads blocks. Maybe
>> that helps keep traffic to pgstat collector to sane levels. But that is
>> not to mean that I think controlling stats collector levels was the only
>> design consideration behind how such counters are published.
>>
>> In case of reporting counters as progress info, it seems we might have to
>> send too many PgStat_Msg's, for example, for every block we finish
>> processing during vacuum. That kind of message traffic may swamp the
>> collector. Then we need to see the updated counters from other counters in
>> near real-time though that may be possible with suitable (build?)
>> configuration.
>
> As far as I understand it, the basic reason why this patch exists is
> to allow a DBA to have a hint of the progress of a VACUUM that may be
> taking minutes, or say hours, which is something we don't have now. So
> it seems perfectly fine to me to report this information
> asynchronously with a bit of lag. Why would we need so much precision
> in the report?

Sorry, I didn't mean to overstate this requirement. I agree precise
real-time reporting of progress info is not such a stringent requirement
from the patch. The point regarding whether we should storm the collector
with progress info messages still holds, IMHO.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-12-11 00:49:52 Add IS (NOT) DISTINCT to subquery_Op
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2015-12-11 00:31:29 Re: Error with index on unlogged table