Re: Fix pg_buffercache document

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix pg_buffercache document
Date: 2020-05-07 09:12:16
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JH7EXR5M7CKYbjoOoygAUGyt7cfkKC89C=rYo-guZyNA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:23 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The following description in pg_buffercace is no longer true.
>
> When the pg_buffercache view is accessed, internal buffer manager
> locks are taken for long enough to copy all the buffer state data that
> the view will display. This ensures that the view produces a
> consistent set of results, while not blocking normal buffer activity
> longer than necessary. Nonetheless there could be some impact on
> database performance if this view is read often.
>
> We changed pg_buffercache_page so that it doesn't take buffer manager
> locks in commit 6e654546fb6. Therefore from version 10,
> pg_buffercache_page has less impact on normal buffer activity less but
> might not return a consistent snapshot across all buffers instead.
>

+1.

There is a typo in the patch (queris/queries). How about if slightly
reword it as "Since buffer manager locks are not taken to copy the
buffer state data that the view will display, accessing
<structname>pg_buffercache</structname> view has less impact on normal
buffer activity but it doesn't provide a consistent set of results
across all buffers. However, we ensure that the information of each
buffer is self-consistent."?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc Rechté 2020-05-07 09:12:56 min_wal_size > max_wal_size is accepted
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-05-07 08:57:00 Re: Back-patch is necessary? Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.