Re: explain plans with information about (modified) gucs

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
Date: 2018-12-14 12:29:20
Message-ID: CAFj8pRBL6RYhzCnTpmkD=ucKGtzHdRWq6CjkaxVaKx1b47tV5w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

pá 14. 12. 2018 v 12:41 odesílatel Tomas Vondra <
tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> napsal:

> Hi,
>
> 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))
> continue;
>
> 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.
>
> Opinions?
>

has sense

Pavel

>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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