Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> > > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > > > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> > > > > > catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, but can you check which part of code does that lookup? I want
> > > > > to see if we can avoid that from buffer usage stats or at least write
> > > > > a comment about it, otherwise, we might have to face this question
> > > > > again and again.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I'll check it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've checked the buffer usage differences when parallel btree index creation.
> > >
> > > TL;DR;
> > >
> > > During tuple sorting individual parallel workers read blocks of
> > > pg_amproc and pg_amproc_fam_proc_index to get the sort support
> > > function. The call flow is like:
> > >
> > > ParallelWorkerMain()
> > > _bt_parallel_scan_and_sort()
> > > tuplesort_begin_index_btree()
> > > PrepareSortSupportFromIndexRel()
> > > FinishSortSupportFunction()
> > > get_opfamily_proc()
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special
> > about this. In an ideal world, this should be done once and not for
> > each worker but I guess it doesn't matter too much. I am not sure if
> > it is worth adding a comment for this, what do you think?
> >
>
> I agree with you. If the differences were considerably large probably
> we would do something but I think we don't need to anything at this
> time.

+1