Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, chaturvedipalak1911(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, Khoa Nguyen <khoaduynguyen(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats
Date: 2026-04-07 13:07:45
Message-ID: 7ab3914f-da59-4c1f-b809-225637b586e8@iki.fi
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 28/03/2026 06:18, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Parallely myself and Palak Chaturvedi developed a quick patch to
> modernise pg_buffercache_pages() and use tuplestore so that it doesn't
> have to rely on NBuffers being the same between start of the scan,
> when memory allocated, when the scan ends - a condition possible with
> resizing buffer cache. It seems to improve the timings by about 10-30%
> on my laptop for 128MB buffercache size. Without this patch the time
> taken to execute Lukas's query varies between 10-15ms on my laptop.
> With this patch it varies between 8-9ms. So the timing is more stable
> as a side effect. It's not a 10x improvement that we are looking for
> but it looks like a step in the right direction. That improvement
> seems to come purely because we avoid creating a heap tuple. I wonder
> if there are some places up in the execution tree where full
> heaptuples get formed again instead of continuing to use minimal
> tuples or places where we perform some extra actions that are not
> required.
>
> I didn't dig into the history to find out why we didn't modernize
> pg_buffercache_pages(). I don't see any hazard though.

Committed this modernization patch, thanks!

It would be nice to have a proper row-at-a-time mode that would avoid
materializing the result, but collecting all the data in a temporary
array is clearly worse than just putting them to the tuplestore
directly. The only reason I can think of why we'd prefer to use a
temporary array like that is to get a more consistent snapshot of all
the buffers, by keeping the time spent scanning the buffers as short as
possible. But we're not getting a consistent view anyway, it's just a
matter of degree.

I wondered about this in pg_buffercache_pages.c:

> /*
> * To smoothly support upgrades from version 1.0 of this extension
> * transparently handle the (non-)existence of the pinning_backends
> * column. We unfortunately have to get the result type for that... - we
> * can't use the result type determined by the function definition without
> * potentially crashing when somebody uses the old (or even wrong)
> * function definition though.
> */
> if (get_call_result_type(fcinfo, NULL, &expected_tupledesc) != TYPEFUNC_COMPOSITE)
> elog(ERROR, "return type must be a row type");
>
> if (expected_tupledesc->natts < NUM_BUFFERCACHE_PAGES_MIN_ELEM ||
> expected_tupledesc->natts > NUM_BUFFERCACHE_PAGES_ELEM)
> elog(ERROR, "incorrect number of output arguments");

I guess it's still needed, if you have pg_upgraded all the way from 1.0.
To test that, I created this view to match the old 1.0 definition:

CREATE VIEW public.legacy_pg_buffercache AS
SELECT bufferid,
relfilenode,
reltablespace,
reldatabase,
relforknumber,
relblocknumber,
isdirty,
usagecount
FROM public.pg_buffercache_pages() p(bufferid integer, relfilenode
oid, reltablespace oid, reldatabase oid, relforknumber smallint,
relblocknumber bigint, isdirty boolean, usagecount smallint);

"select * from public.legacy_pg_buffercache" still works, so all good.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2026-04-07 13:15:23 Re: meson: Make test output much more useful on failure (both in CI and locally)
Previous Message Xuneng Zhou 2026-04-07 13:05:40 Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded