| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flush some statistics within running transactions |
| Date: | 2026-01-26 06:59:28 |
| Message-ID: | aXcQ0Bdff5OsUDWY@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 Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 04:45:31PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 09:12:18PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >
> > With this setup, the following messages were logged once per second:
> >
> > LOG: process 72199 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction 771
> > after 63034.119 ms
> > DETAIL: Process holding the lock: 72190. Wait queue: 72199.
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> I see, the WaitLatch() in ProcSleep() is "woken up" every 1s due to the
> enable_timeout_after(ANYTIME_STATS_UPDATE_TIMEOUT,...) being set unconditionally
> in ProcessInterrupts(). We need to be more restrictive as to when to enable the
> timeout, I'll fix in the next version.
The attached, to apply on top of 0001, fix the issue. However it handles only the
WaitLatch in ProcSleep() case and I start to have concern about the others WaitLatch()
that would/could be "woken up" every 1s.
Using disable_timeout() and enable_timeout_after() in WaitEventSetWait() does not
look like a great answer to this concern, so I wonder if we should use a larger
flush frequency instead (as proposed up-thread), thoughts?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix_ProcSleep.txt | text/plain | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-01-26 07:10:03 | Re: tablecmds: reject CLUSTER ON for partitioned tables earlier |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-01-26 05:38:16 | Re: docs: clarify ALTER TABLE behavior on partitioned tables |