| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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 08:26:23 | 
| Message-ID: | ZmgKL8zUm3qxbY9V@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 04:07:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for the proposal and the patch. I understand the motivation
> of this patch.
Thanks for looking at it!
> Beside the point Nathan mentioned, I'm slightly worried
> that massive parallel messages could be sent to the leader process
> when the cost_limit value is low.
I see, I can/will do some testing in this area and share the numbers.
> 
> FWIW when I want to confirm the vacuum delay effect, I often use the
> information from the DEBUG2 log message in VacuumUpdateCosts()
> function. Exposing these data (per-worker dobalance, cost_lmit,
> cost_delay, active, and failsafe) somewhere in a view might also be
> helpful for users for checking vacuum delay effects.
Do you mean add time_delayed in pg_stat_progress_vacuum and cost_limit + the
other data you mentioned above in another dedicated view?
Regards,
-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-06-11 08:35:32 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution | 
| Previous Message | Tender Wang | 2024-06-11 08:11:26 | Re: Should consider materializing the cheapest inner path in consider_parallel_nestloop() |