Re: WAL usage calculation patch

From: Kirill Bychik <kirill(dot)bychik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date: 2020-03-18 17:48:17
Message-ID: CAB-hujoCsVriYB6vyAyAaTx7k9yghAz_oTOF97CQhecyzCUtQw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > There is a higher-level Instrumentation API that can be used with
> > INSTRUMENT_WAL flag to collect the wal usage information. I believe
> > the instrumentation is widely used in the executor code, so it should
> > not be a problem to colelct instrumentation information on autovacuum
> > worker level.
> >
> > Just a recommendation/chat, though. I am happy with the way the data
> > is collected now. If you commit this variant, please add a TODO to
> > rework wal usage to common instr API.
>
>
> The instrumentation is somewhat intended to be used with executor nodes, not
> backend commands. I don't see real technical reason that would prevent that,
> but I prefer to keep things as-is for now, as it sound less controversial.
> This is for the 3rd patch, which may not even be considered for this CF anyway.
>
>
> > > > As for the tests, please get somebody else to review this. I strongly
> > > > believe checking full page writes here could be a source of
> > > > instability.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm also a little bit dubious about it. The initial checkpoint should make
> > > things stable (of course unless full_page_writes is disabled), and Cfbot also
> > > seems happy about it. At least keeping it for the temporary tables test
> > > shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> > Temp tables should show zero FPI WAL records, true :)
> >
> > I have no objections to the patch.
>
>
> I'm attaching a v5 with fp records only for temp tables, so there's no risk of
> instability. As I previously said I'm fine with your two patches, so unless
> you have objections on the fpi test for temp tables or the documentation
> changes, I believe those should be ready for committer.

No objections on my side either. Thank you for your review, time and efforts!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2020-03-18 17:58:03 Re: Small docs bugfix: make it clear what can be used in UPDATE FROM and DELETE USING
Previous Message James Coleman 2020-03-18 17:37:13 Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)