|From:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
pá 14. 12. 2018 v 12:41 odesílatel Tomas Vondra <
> every now and then I have to investigate an execution plan that is
> strange in some way and I can't reproduce the same behavior. Usually
> it's simply due to data distribution changing since the problem was
> observed (say, after a nightly batch load/update).
> In many cases it however may be due to some local GUC tweaks, usually
> addressing some query specific issues (say, disabling nested loops or
> lowering join_collapse_limit). I've repeatedly ran into cases where the
> GUC was not properly reset to the "regular" value, and it's rather
> difficult to identify this is what's happening. Or cases with different
> per-user settings and connection pooling (SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION /
> ROLE etc.).
> So I propose to extend EXPLAIN output with an additional option, which
> would include information about modified GUCs in the execution plan
> (disabled by default, of course):
> test=# explain (gucs) select * from t;
> QUERY PLAN
> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..35.50 rows=2550 width=4)
> GUCs: application_name = 'x', client_encoding = 'UTF8',
> cpu_tuple_cost = '0.01'
> (2 rows)
> Of course, this directly applies to auto_explain too, which gets a new
> option log_gucs.
> The patch is quite trivial, but there are about three open questions:
> 1) names of the options
> I'm not particularly happy with calling the option "gucs" - it's an
> acronym and many users have little idea what GUC stands for. So I think
> a better name would be desirable, but I'm not sure what would that be.
> Options? Parameters?
> 2) format of output
> At this point the names/values are simply formatted into a one-line
> string. That's not particularly readable, and it's not very useful for
> the YAML/JSON formats I guess. So adding each modified GUC as an extra
> text property would be better.
> 3) identifying modified (and interesting) GUCs
> We certainly don't want to include all GUCs, so the question is how to
> decide which GUCs are interesting. The simplest approach would be to
> look for GUCs that changed in the session (source == PGC_S_SESSION), but
> that does not help with SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION / ROLE cases. So we
> probably want (source > PGC_S_ARGV), but probably not PGC_S_OVERRIDE
> because that includes irrelevant options like wal_buffers etc.
> For now I've used
> /* return only options that were modified (not as in config file) */
> if ((conf->source <= PGC_S_ARGV) || (conf->source == PGC_S_OVERRIDE))
> which generally does the right thing, although it also includes stuff
> like application_name or client_encoding. But perhaps it'd be better to
> whitelist the GUCs in some way, because some of the user-defined GUCs
> may be sensitive and should not be included in plans.
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Tomas Vondra||2018-12-14 12:49:11||Re: valgrind issues on Fedora 28|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2018-12-14 12:18:26||Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name|