Re: SLRU statistics
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-01-21T13:59:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix async.c to not register any SLRU stats counts in the postmaster.
- 7fd89f4d7a51 13.0 landed
-
Use proper GetDatum function in pg_stat_get_slru().
- 043e3e040160 13.0 landed
-
Initialize SLRU stats entries to zero.
- f3d23d83ef9a 13.0 landed
-
Remove pg_xact from pg_stat_reset_slru docs
- e685ca63ca4f 13.0 landed
-
Remove pg_xact entry from SLRU stats
- 2e08d314ed07 13.0 landed
-
Track SLRU page hits in SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly
- 2b88fdde30d8 13.0 landed
-
Fix typo in SLRU stats documentation
- 2c220ca46f3f 13.0 landed
-
Collect statistics about SLRU caches
- 28cac71bd368 13.0 landed
-
Simplify and rename some GUC variables, per various recent discussions:
- 48f7e6439568 8.3.0 cited
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:24:29AM +0000, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote: >From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> >> You're right the users can't really take advantage of this - my >> primary motivation was providing a feedback for devs, benchmarking >> etc. That might have been done with DEBUG messages or something, but >> this seems more convenient. > >Understood. I'm in favor of adding performance information even if it >doesn't make sense for users (like other DBMSs sometimes do.) One >concern is that all the PostgreSQL performance statistics have been >useful so far for tuning in some way, and this may become the first >exception. Do we describe the SLRU stats view in the manual, or hide >it only for PG devs and support staff? > Yes, the pg_stat_slru view should be described in a manual. That's missing from the patch. > >> I think it's unclear how desirable / necessary it is to allow users >> to tweak those caches. I don't think we should have a GUC for >> everything, but maybe there's some sort of heuristics to determine >> the size. The assumption is we actually find practical workloads >> where the size of these SLRUs is a performance issue. > >I understood that the new performance statistics are expected to reveal >what SLRUs need to be tunable and/or implemented with a different >mechanism like shared buffers. > Right. It's certainly meant to provide information for further tuning. I'm just saying it's targeted more at developers, at least initially. Maybe we'll end up with GUCs, maybe we'll choose other approaches for some SLRUs. I don't have an opinion on that yet. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services