From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reconcile stats in find_tabstat_entry() and get rid of PgStat_BackendFunctionEntry |
Date: | 2023-03-27 06:35:48 |
Message-ID: | ZCE5RC78LaudfeJp@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 08:00:44PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't understand what we're optimizing for here. These functions are very
> very very far from being a hot path. The xact functions are barely ever
> used. Compared to the cost of query evaluation the cost of iterating throught
> he subxacts is neglegible.
I was wondering about that, and I see why I'm wrong. I have quickly
gone up to 10k subtransactions, and while I was seeing what looks like
difference of 8~10% in runtime when looking at
pg_stat_xact_all_tables, the overval runtime was still close enough
(5.8ms vs 6.4ms). At this scale, possible that it was some noise,
these seemed repeatable still not to worry about.
Anyway, I was looking at this patch, and I still feel that it is a bit
incorrect to have the copy of PgStat_TableStatus returned by
find_tabstat_entry() to point to the same list of subtransaction data
as the pending entry found, while the counters are incremented. This
could lead to mistakes if the copy from find_tabstat_entry() is used
in an unexpected way in the future. The current callers are OK, but
this does not give me a warm feeling :/
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-03-27 06:37:55 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-03-27 06:32:47 | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |