Re: Replication slot stats misgivings

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Date: 2021-04-20 09:59:16
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LV1-nAQfvDawmZy1aQ_Qcku9ExQbNXcn1HBAU25ONU9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:08 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I've attached the new version patch that fixed the compilation error
> reported off-line by Amit.
>

I was thinking about whether we can someway avoid the below risk:
In case where the
+ * message for dropping the old slot gets lost and a slot with the same
+ * name is created, the stats will be accumulated into the old slots since
+ * we use the slot name as the key. In that case, user can reset the
+ * particular stats by pg_stat_reset_replication_slot().

What if we send a separate message for create slot such that the stats
collector will initialize the entries even if the previous drop
message is lost or came later? If we do that then if the drop message
is lost, the create with same name won't accumulate the stats and if
the drop came later, it will remove the newly created stats but
anyway, later stats from the same slot will again create the slot
entry in the hash table.

Also, I think we can include the test case prepared by Vignesh in the email [1].

Apart from the above, I have made few minor modifications in the attached patch.
(a) + if (slotent->stat_reset_timestamp == 0 || !slotent)
I don't understand why second part of check is required? By this time
slotent will anyway have some valid value.

(b) + slotent = (PgStat_StatReplSlotEntry *) hash_search(replSlotStats,
+ (void *) &name,
+ create_it ? HASH_ENTER : HASH_FIND,
+ &found);

It is better to use NameStr here.

(c) made various changes in comments and some other cosmetic changes.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm3yBctNFE6X2FV_haRF4uue9okm1_DVE6ZANWvOV_CvYw%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v10-0001-Use-HTAB-for-replication-slot-statistics.patch application/octet-stream 32.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2021-04-20 10:01:28 Re: "could not find pathkey item to sort" for TPC-DS queries 94-96
Previous Message Greg Nancarrow 2021-04-20 09:49:34 Tiny update to pg_stat_statements documentation