Horton

Re: WAL usage calculation patch

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-03-30T12:43:56Z
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 →

  1. Change the display of WAL usage statistics in Explain.

  2. Cosmetic fixups for WAL usage work.

  3. Allow parallel create index to accumulate buffer usage stats.

  4. Allow autovacuum to log WAL usage statistics.

  5. Add the option to report WAL usage in EXPLAIN and auto_explain.

  6. Allow pg_stat_statements to track WAL usage statistics.

  7. Add infrastructure to track WAL usage.

  8. Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output, take two.

  9. Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output.

  10. Allow parallel vacuum to accumulate buffer usage.

  11. Allow pg_stat_statements to track planning statistics.

Attachments

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:52:38PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:49 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> @@ -1249,6 +1250,16 @@ XLogInsertRecord(XLogRecData *rdata,
>   ProcLastRecPtr = StartPos;
>   XactLastRecEnd = EndPos;
> 
> + /* Provide WAL update data to the instrumentation */
> + if (inserted)
> + {
> + pgWalUsage.wal_bytes += rechdr->xl_tot_len;
> + if (doPageWrites && fpw_lsn <= RedoRecPtr)
> + pgWalUsage.wal_fpw_records++;
> + else
> + pgWalUsage.wal_records++;
> + }
> +
> 
> I think the above code has multiple problems. (a) fpw_lsn can be
> InvalidXLogRecPtr and still there could be full-page image (for ex.
> when REGBUF_FORCE_IMAGE flag for buffer is set).  (b) There could be
> multiple FPW records while inserting a record; consider when there are
> multiple registered buffers.  I think the right place to figure this
> out is XLogRecordAssemble. (c) There are cases when we also attach the
> record data even when we decide to write FPW (cf. REGBUF_KEEP_DATA),
> so we might want to increment wal_fpw_records and wal_records for such
> cases.
> 
> I think the right place to compute this information is
> XLogRecordAssemble even though we update it at the place where you
> have it in the patch.  You can probably compute that in local
> variables and then transfer to pgWalUsage in XLogInsertRecord.  I am
> fine if you can think of some other way but the current patch doesn't
> seem correct to me.

My previous approach was indeed totally broken.  v8 attached which hopefully
will be ok.