Horton

Re: Vacuum statistics

Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>

View thread
From: Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jnasby@upgrade.com>, Andrei Zubkov <zubkov@moonset.ru>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru
Date: 2024-12-02T20:12:05Z
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. Move wal_buffers_full from PgStat_PendingWalStats to WalUsage

On 02.12.2024 11:27, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi, Alena!
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:21 PM Alena Rybakina
> <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>  wrote:
>> Updated 0001-v13 attached, as well as the diff between v12 and v13.
>>
>> Thank you)
>>
>> And I agree with your changes. And included them in patches.
> Thank you for the updated patchset.  Some points from me.
>
> * I've read the previous discussion on how important to keep all these
> fields regarding vacuum statistics including points by Andrei and Jim.
> It still worrying me that statistics volume is going to burst in about
> 3 times, but I don't have a particular proposal on how to make more
> granular approach.  I wonder if you could propose something.
> * Previously PGSTAT_FILE_FORMAT_ID got increased by 1. Your 0001 patch
> increases it by 2.  It's minor note, but I'd like to keep the
> tradition.
> * Commit message for 0001 looks nice, but commit messages of 0002,
> 0003, and 0004 look messy.  Could you please, rearrange them.
> * The distinction between 0001 and 0002 is not clear. The first line
> of 0001 is "Machinery for grabbing an extended vacuum statistics on
> heap relations", the first line of 0002 is "Machinery for grabbing an
> extended vacuum statistics on heap and index relations."  I guess 0001
> should be about heap relations while 0002 should be about just index
> relations.  Is this correct?
> * I guess this statistics should work for any table AM, based on what
> has been done in relation_vacuum() interface method.  If that's
> correct, we need to get rid of "heap" terminology and use "table"
> instead.
> * 0004 should be pure documentation patch, but it seems containing
> changes to isolation tests.  Please, move them into a more appropriate
> place.
>
Thank you for your valuable feedback, I am already carefully processing 
your comments and will update the patches soon.

I will think about what can be done to address the problem of increasing 
the volume of statistics; perhaps it will be possible to implement a guc 
that, when enabled, will accumulate additional information on vacuum 
statistics. For example, this way you can group statistics by buffers 
and vacuum statistics.

-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional