| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay | 
| Date: | 2024-06-11 06:24:42 | 
| Message-ID: | ZmftqmR4OwDOlxrJ@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:20:16PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 05:48:22PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:36:42AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> I wonder if we should also
> >> surface the effective cost limit for each autovacuum worker.
> > 
> > I'm not sure about it as I think that it could be misleading: one could query
> > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and conclude that the time_delayed he is seeing is
> > due to _this_ cost_limit. But that's not necessary true as the cost_limit could
> > have changed multiple times since the vacuum started. So, unless there is
> > frequent sampling on pg_stat_progress_vacuum, displaying the time_delayed and
> > the cost_limit could be misleadind IMHO.
> 
> Well, that's true for the delay, too, right (at least as of commit
> 7d71d3d)?
Yeah right, but the patch exposes the total amount of time the vacuum has
been delayed (not the cost_delay per say) which does not sound misleading to me.
Regards,
-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-06-11 06:26:38 | Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres | 
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-06-11 06:02:12 | Re: 001_rep_changes.pl fails due to publisher stuck on shutdown |