Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size

On 2020-09-07 16:19, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2020/09/07 9:58, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>> Thanks for the review and advice!
>>
>> On 2020-09-03 16:05, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On 2020/09/02 18:56, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>>>> +/* ----------
>>>>> + * Backend types
>>>>> + * ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to forget to add "*/" into the above comment.
>>>>> This issue could cause the following compiler warning.
>>>>> ../../src/include/pgstat.h:761:1: warning: '/*' within block
>>>>> comment [-Wcomment]
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the comment. I fixed.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the fix! But why are those comments necessary?
>>
>> Sorry about that. This comment is not necessary.
>> I removed it.
>>
>>>> The pg_stat_walwriter is not security restricted now, so ordinary
>>>> users can access it.
>>>> It has the same security level as pg_stat_archiver. If you have any
>>>> comments, please let me know.
>>>
>>> +       <structfield>dirty_writes</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
>>>
>>> I guess that the column name "dirty_writes" derived from
>>> the DTrace probe name. Isn't this name confusing? We should
>>> rename it to "wal_buffers_full" or something?
>>
>> I agree and rename it to "wal_buffers_full".
>>
>>> +/* ----------
>>> + * PgStat_MsgWalWriter            Sent by the walwriter to update
>>> statistics.
>>>
>>> This comment seems not accurate because backends also send it.
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * WAL writes statistics counter is updated in XLogWrite function
>>> + */
>>> +extern PgStat_MsgWalWriter WalWriterStats;
>>>
>>> This comment seems not right because the counter is not updated in
>>> XLogWrite().
>>
>> Right. I fixed it to "Sent by each backend and background workers to
>> update WAL statistics."
>> In the future, other statistics will be included so I remove the
>> function's name.
>>
>>
>>> +-- There will surely and maximum one record
>>> +select count(*) = 1 as ok from pg_stat_walwriter;
>>>
>>> What about changing this comment to "There must be only one record"?
>>
>> Thanks, I fixed.
>>
>>> +                    WalWriterStats.m_xlog_dirty_writes++;
>>>                      LWLockRelease(WALWriteLock);
>>>
>>> Since WalWriterStats.m_xlog_dirty_writes doesn't need to be protected
>>> with WALWriteLock, isn't it better to increment that after releasing
>>> the lock?
>>
>> Thanks, I fixed.
>>
>>> +CREATE VIEW pg_stat_walwriter AS
>>> +    SELECT
>>> +        pg_stat_get_xlog_dirty_writes() AS dirty_writes,
>>> +        pg_stat_get_walwriter_stat_reset_time() AS stats_reset;
>>> +
>>>  CREATE VIEW pg_stat_progress_vacuum AS
>>>
>>> In system_views.sql, the definition of pg_stat_walwriter should be
>>> placed just after that of pg_stat_bgwriter not
>>> pg_stat_progress_analyze.
>>
>> OK, I fixed it.
>>
>>>      }
>>> -
>>>      /*
>>>       * We found an existing collector stats file. Read it and put
>>> all the
>>>
>>> You seem to accidentally have removed the empty line here.
>>
>> Sorry about that. I fixed it.
>>
>>> -                 errhint("Target must be \"archiver\" or
>>> \"bgwriter\".")));
>>> +                 errhint("Target must be \"archiver\" or
>>> \"bgwriter\" or
>>> \"walwriter\".")));
>>>
>>> There are two "or" in the message, but the former should be replaced
>>> with ","?
>>
>> Thanks, I fixed.
>>
>>
>> On 2020-09-05 18:40, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:42 AM Fujii Masao
>>> <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020/09/04 11:50, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
>>>>> From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
>>>>>>> I changed the view name from pg_stat_walwrites to
>>>> pg_stat_walwriter.
>>>>>>> I think it is better to match naming scheme with other views
>>>> like
>>>>>> pg_stat_bgwriter,
>>>>>>> which is for bgwriter statistics but it has the statistics
>>>> related to backend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer the view name pg_stat_walwriter for the consistency with
>>>>>> other view names. But we also have pg_stat_wal_receiver. Which
>>>>>> makes me think that maybe pg_stat_wal_writer is better for
>>>>>> the consistency. Thought? IMO either of them works for me.
>>>>>> I'd like to hear more opinons about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think pg_stat_bgwriter is now a misnomer, because it contains
>>>> the backends' activity.  Likewise, pg_stat_walwriter leads to
>>>> misunderstanding because its information is not limited to WAL
>>>> writer.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about simply pg_stat_wal?  In the future, we may want to
>>>> include WAL reads in this view, e.g. reading undo logs in zheap.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds reasonable.
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> pg_stat_bgwriter has had the "wrong name" for quite some time now --
>>> it became even more apparent when the checkpointer was split out to
>>> it's own process, and that's not exactly a recent change. And it had
>>> allocs in it from day one...
>>>
>>> I think naming it for what the data in it is ("wal") rather than
>>> which
>>> process deals with it ("walwriter") is correct, unless the statistics
>>> can be known to only *ever* affect one type of process. (And then
>>> different processes can affect different columns in the view). As a
>>> general rule -- and that's from what I can tell exactly what's being
>>> proposed.
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I agree with your opinions.
>> I changed the view name to "pg_stat_wal".
>>
>>
>> I fixed the code to send the WAL statistics from not only backend and
>> walwriter
>> but also checkpointer, walsender and autovacuum worker.
>
> Good point! Thanks for updating the patch!
>
>
> @@ -604,6 +604,7 @@ heap_vacuum_rel(Relation onerel, VacuumParams
> *params,
> onerel->rd_rel->relisshared,
> Max(new_live_tuples, 0),
> vacrelstats->new_dead_tuples);
> + pgstat_send_wal();
>
> I guess that you changed heap_vacuum_rel() as above so that autovacuum
> workers can send WAL stats. But heap_vacuum_rel() can be called by
> the processes (e.g., backends) other than autovacuum workers? Also
> what happens if autovacuum workers just do ANALYZE only? In that case,
> heap_vacuum_rel() may not be called.
>
> Currently autovacuum worker reports the stats at the exit via
> pgstat_beshutdown_hook(). Unlike other processes, autovacuum worker
> is not the process that basically keeps running during the service. It
> exits
> after it does vacuum or analyze. So ISTM that it's not bad to report
> the stats
> only at the exit, in autovacuum worker case. There is no need to add
> extra
> code for WAL stats report by autovacuum worker. Thought?

Thanks, I understood. I removed this code.

>
> @@ -1430,6 +1430,9 @@ WalSndWaitForWal(XLogRecPtr loc)
> else
> RecentFlushPtr = GetXLogReplayRecPtr(NULL);
> + /* Send wal statistics */
> + pgstat_send_wal();
>
> AFAIR logical walsender uses three loops in WalSndLoop(),
> WalSndWriteData()
> and WalSndWaitForWal(). But could you tell me why added
> pgstat_send_wal()
> into WalSndWaitForWal()? I'd like to know why WalSndWaitForWal() is the
> best
> for that purpose.

I checked what function calls XLogBackgroundFlush() which calls
AdvanceXLInsertBuffer() to increment m_wal_buffers_full.

I found that WalSndWaitForWal() calls it, so I added it.
Is it better to move it in WalSndLoop() like the attached patch?

Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION