Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.

From: Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Date: 2017-06-27 06:02:00
Message-ID: CAD__Ouhi_8w7twH708VMz5kehCr0iGLD3qWYe4M1kwLn_Y+E+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks, Robert, I have tried to fix all of you comments and merged to
fixes suggested by Thom in patch 15.

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> * I suggest renaming launch_autoprewarm_dump() to
> autoprewarm_start_worker(). I think that will be clearer. Remember
> that user-visible names, internal names, and the documentation should
> all match.

-- Fixed as suggested.

>
> * I think the GUC could be pg_prewarm.autoprewarm rather than
> pg_prewarm.enable_autoprewarm. It's shorter and, I think, no less
> clear.

-- I have made GUC name as autoprewarm.

>
> * In the documentation, don't say "This is a SQL callable function
> to....". This is a list of SQL-callable functions, so each thing in
> the list is one. Just delete this from the beginning of each
> sentence.

-- Fixed, Thom has provided the fix and I have merged same to my patch.

> * The reason for the AT_PWARM_* naming is not very obvious. Does AT
> mean "at" or "auto" or something else? How about
> AUTOPREWARM_INTERVAL_DISABLED, AUTOPREWARM_INTERVAL_SHUTDOWN_ONLY,
> AUTOPREWARM_INTERVAL_DEFAULT?

-- Fixed as suggested. The AUTOPREWARM_INTERVAL_DISABLED is removed
now as suggested by below comments.

>
> * Instead of defining apw_sigusr1_handler, I think you could just use
> procsignal_sigusr1_handler. Instead of defining apw_sigterm_handler,
> perhaps you could just use die(). got_sigterm would go away, and
> you'd just CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().

-- Hi have registered procsignal_sigusr1_handler instead of
apw_sigusr1_handler. But I have some doubts about using die instead of
apw_sigterm_handler in main autoprewarm worker. On shutdown(sigterm)
we should dump and then exit, so doing a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() we
might miss dumping the buffer contents. I think I need to modify some
server code in ProcessInterrupts to handle this, please let me know if
I am wrong about this.
For per-database prewarm worker, this seems right so I am registering
die for SIGTERM and calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). Also for
autoprewarm_dump_now().

>
> * The PG_TRY()/PG_CATCH() block in autoprewarm_dump_now() could reuse
> reset_apw_state(), which might be better named detach_apw_shmem().
> Similarly, init_apw_state() could be init_apw_shmem().

-- Fixed.

> * Instead of load_one_database(), I suggest
> autoprewarm_database_main(). That is more parallel to
> autoprewarm_main(), which you have elsewhere, and makes it more
> obvious that it's the main entrypoint for some background worker.

-- Fixed.

> * Instead of launch_and_wait_for_per_database_worker(), I suggest
> autoprewarm_one_database(), and instead of prewarm_buffer_pool(), I
> suggest autoprewarm_buffers(). The motivation for changing prewarm
> to autoprewarm is that we want the names here to be clearly distinct
> from the other parts of pg_prewarm that are not related to
> autoprewarm. The motivation for changing buffer_pool to buffers is
> just that it's a little shorter. Personally I also like the sound it
> of it better, but YMMV.

-- Fixed as suggested. I have renamed as suggested.

> * prewarm_buffer_pool() ends with a useless return statement. I
> suggest removing it.

-- Sorry Fixed.

>
> * Instead of creating our own buffering system via buffer_file_write()
> and buffer_file_flush(), why not just use the facilities provided by
> the operating system? fopen() et. al. provide buffering, and we have
> AllocateFile() to provide a FILE *; it's just like
> OpenTransientFile(), which you are using, but you'll get the buffering
> stuff for free. Maybe there's some reason why this won't work out
> nicely, but off-hand it seems like it might. It looks like you are
> already using AllocateFile() to read the dump, so using it to write
> the dump as well seems like it would be logical.

-- Now using AllocateFile().

> * I think that it would be cool if, when autoprewarm completed, it
> printed a message at LOG rather than DEBUG1, and with a few more
> details, like "autoprewarm successfully prewarmed %d of %d
> previously-loaded blocks". This would require some additional
> tracking that you haven't got right now; you'd have to keep track not
> only of the number of blocks read from the file but how many of those
> some worker actually loaded. You could do that with an extra counter
> in the shared memory area that gets incremented by the per-database
> workers.
>
> * dump_block_info_periodically() calls ResetLatch() immediately before
> WaitLatch; that's backwards. See the commit message for commit
> 887feefe87b9099eeeec2967ec31ce20df4dfa9b and the comments it added to
> the top of latch.h for details on how to do this correctly.

-- Sorry Fixed.

> * dump_block_info_periodically()'s main loop is a bit confusing. I
> think that after calling dump_now(true) it should just "continue",
> which will automatically retest got_sigterm. You could rightly object
> to that plan on the grounds that we then wouldn't recheck got_sighup
> promptly, but you can fix that by moving the got_sighup test to the
> top of the loop, which is a good idea anyway for at least two other
> reasons. First, you probably want to check for a pending SIGHUP on
> initially entering this function, because something might have changed
> during the prewarm phase, and second, see the previous comment about
> using the "another valid coding pattern" from latch.h, which puts the
> ResetLatch() at the bottom of the loop.

-- Agree, my idea was while we were dumping or just immediately after
dumping if we receive sigterm we need not dump again for shutdown. I
think I am wrong so fixed as you have suggested.

>
> * I think that launch_autoprewarm_dump() should ereport(ERROR, ...)
> rather than just return NULL if the feature is disabled. Maybe
> something like ... ERROR: pg_prewarm.dump_interval must be
> non-negative in order to launch worker

-- I have removed pg_prewarm.dump_interval = -1 case as you have
suggested below. So no need for error now.

> * Not sure about this one, but maybe we should consider just getting
> rid of pg_prewarm.dump_interval = -1 altogether and make the minimum
> value 0. If pg_prewarm.autoprewarm = on, then we start the worker and
> dump according to the dump interval; if pg_prewarm.autoprewarm = off
> then we don't start the worker automatically, but we still let you
> start it manually. If you do, it respects the configured
> dump_interval. With this design, we don't need the error suggested in
> the previous item at all, and the code can be simplified in various
> places --- all the checks for AT_PWARM_OFF go away. And I don't see
> that we're really losing anything. There's not much sense in dumping
> but not prewarming or prewarming but not dumping, so having
> pg_prewarm.autoprewarm configure whether the worker is started
> automatically rather than whether it prewarms (with a separate control
> for whether it dumps) seems to make sense. The one time when you want
> to do one without the other is when you first install the extension --
> during the first server lifetime, you'll want to dump, so that after
> the next restart you have something to preload. But this design would
> allow that.

-- Agree. Removed the case pg_prewarm.dump_interval = -1. I had
similar doubt which I have tried to raise previously

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>There is another GUC setting pg_prewarm.dump_interval if = -1 we stop
>>the running autoprewarm worker. I have a doubt should we combine these
>>2 entities into one such that it controls the state of autoprewarm
>>worker?

Now I have one doubt, do we need a mechanism to stop running
autoprewarm worker while keeping the server alive? Can I use the
pg_prewarm.autoprewarm for the same purpose?

--
Thanks and Regards
Mithun C Y
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
autoprewarm_16.patch application/octet-stream 34.3 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mithun Cy 2017-06-27 06:11:46 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-06-27 05:43:23 Misleading comment in slru.h