Thread

Commits

Report index vacuum progress.
- 46ebdfe164c6 17.0 landed
Add new parallel message type to progress reporting.
- f1889729dd3a 17.0 landed
Remove MaxBackends variable in favor of GetMaxBackends() function.
- aa64f23b0292 15.0 cited

Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2021-12-01T19:32:01Z

The current implementation of pg_stat_progress_vacuum does not provide progress on which index is being vacuumed making it difficult for a user to determine if the "vacuuming indexes" phase is making progress. By exposing which index is being scanned as well as the total progress the scan has made for the current cycle, a user can make better estimations on when the vacuum will complete.

The proposed patch adds 4 new columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum:

1. indrelid - the relid of the index being vacuumed
2. index_blks_total - total number of blocks to be scanned in the current cycle
3. index_blks_scanned - number of blocks scanned in the current cycle
4. leader_pid - if the pid for the pg_stat_progress_vacuum entry is a leader or a vacuum worker. This patch places an entry for every worker pid ( if parallel ) as well as the leader pid

Attached is the patch.

Here is a sample output of a parallel vacuum for table with relid = 16638

postgres=# select * from pg_stat_progress_vacuum ;
-[ RECORD 1 ]------+------------------
pid                | 18180
datid              | 13732
datname            | postgres
relid              | 16638
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 5149825
heap_blks_scanned  | 5149825
heap_blks_vacuumed | 3686381
index_vacuum_count | 2
max_dead_tuples    | 178956969
num_dead_tuples    | 142086544
indrelid           | 0                                                                               <<-----
index_blks_total   | 0                                                                      <<-----
index_blks_scanned | 0                                                                 <<-----
leader_pid         |                                                                              <<-----
-[ RECORD 2 ]------+------------------
pid                | 1543
datid              | 13732
datname            | postgres
relid              | 16638
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 0
heap_blks_scanned  | 0
heap_blks_vacuumed | 0
index_vacuum_count | 0
max_dead_tuples    | 0
num_dead_tuples    | 0
indrelid           | 16646
index_blks_total   | 3030305
index_blks_scanned | 2356564
leader_pid         | 18180
-[ RECORD 3 ]------+------------------
pid                | 1544
datid              | 13732
datname            | postgres
relid              | 16638
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 0
heap_blks_scanned  | 0
heap_blks_vacuumed | 0
index_vacuum_count | 0
max_dead_tuples    | 0
num_dead_tuples    | 0
indrelid           | 16651
index_blks_total   | 2685921
index_blks_scanned | 2119179
leader_pid         | 18180

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Database Engineer @ Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com> — 2021-12-15T22:09:59Z

On 12/1/21, 3:02 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> The current implementation of pg_stat_progress_vacuum does not
> provide progress on which index is being vacuumed making it
> difficult for a user to determine if the "vacuuming indexes" phase
> is making progress. By exposing which index is being scanned as well
> as the total progress the scan has made for the current cycle, a
> user can make better estimations on when the vacuum will complete.

+1

> The proposed patch adds 4 new columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum:
>
> 1. indrelid - the relid of the index being vacuumed
> 2. index_blks_total - total number of blocks to be scanned in the
> current cycle
> 3. index_blks_scanned - number of blocks scanned in the current
> cycle
> 4. leader_pid - if the pid for the pg_stat_progress_vacuum entry is
> a leader or a vacuum worker. This patch places an entry for every
> worker pid ( if parallel ) as well as the leader pid

nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.

This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
I think such information is necessary to truly understand the current
progress of vacuuming indexes, and I can think of a couple of ways we
might provide it:

  1. Make the new columns you've proposed return arrays.  This isn't
     very clean, but it would keep all the information for a given
     vacuum operation in a single row.  The indrelids column would be
     populated with all the indexes that have been vacuumed, need to
     be vacuumed, or are presently being vacuumed.  The other index-
     related columns would then have the associated stats and the
     worker PID (which might be the same as the pid column depending
     on whether parallel index vacuum was being done).  Alternatively,
     the index column could have an array of records, each containing
     all the information for a given index.
  2. Create a new view for just index vacuum progress information.
     This would have similar information as 1.  There would be an
     entry for each index that has been vacuumed, needs to be
     vacuumed, or is currently being vacuumed.  And there would be an
     easy way to join with pg_stat_progress_vacuum (e.g., leader_pid,
     which again might be the same as our index vacuum PID depending
     on whether we were doing parallel index vacuum).  Note that it
     would be possible for the PID of these entries to be null before
     and after we process the index.
  3. Instead of adding columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum, adjust the
     current ones to be more general, and then add new entries for
     each of the indexes that have been, need to be, or currently are
     being vacuumed.  This is the most similar option to your current
     proposal, but instead of introducing a column like
     index_blks_total, we'd rename heap_blks_total to blks_total and
     use that for both the heap and indexes.  I think we'd still want
     to add a leader_pid column.  Again, we have to be prepared for
     the PID to be null in this case.  Or we could just make the pid
     column always refer to the leader, and we could introduce a
     worker_pid column.  That might create confusion, though.

I wish option #1 was cleaner, because I think it would be really nice
to have all this information in a single row.  However, I don't expect
much support for a 3-dimensional view, so I suspect option #2
(creating a separate view for index vacuum progress) is the way to go.
The other benefit of option #2 versus option #3 or your original
proposal is that it cleanly separates the top-level vacuum operations
and the index vacuum operations, which are related at the moment, but
which might not always be tied so closely together.

Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2021-12-16T21:37:11Z


On 12/15/21, 4:10 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

    On 12/1/21, 3:02 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
    > The current implementation of pg_stat_progress_vacuum does not
    > provide progress on which index is being vacuumed making it
    > difficult for a user to determine if the "vacuuming indexes" phase
    > is making progress. By exposing which index is being scanned as well
    > as the total progress the scan has made for the current cycle, a
    > user can make better estimations on when the vacuum will complete.

    +1

    > The proposed patch adds 4 new columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum:
    >
    > 1. indrelid - the relid of the index being vacuumed
    > 2. index_blks_total - total number of blocks to be scanned in the
    > current cycle
    > 3. index_blks_scanned - number of blocks scanned in the current
    > cycle
    > 4. leader_pid - if the pid for the pg_stat_progress_vacuum entry is
    > a leader or a vacuum worker. This patch places an entry for every
    > worker pid ( if parallel ) as well as the leader pid

    nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
    is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.

No, What is being tracked is the number of index blocks scanned from the total index blocks. The block will be scanned regardless if it will be vacuumed or not. 

    This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
    current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
    indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
    I think such information is necessary to truly understand the current
    progress of vacuuming indexes, and I can think of a couple of ways we
    might provide it:

      1. Make the new columns you've proposed return arrays.  This isn't
         very clean, but it would keep all the information for a given
         vacuum operation in a single row.  The indrelids column would be
         populated with all the indexes that have been vacuumed, need to
         be vacuumed, or are presently being vacuumed.  The other index-
         related columns would then have the associated stats and the
         worker PID (which might be the same as the pid column depending
         on whether parallel index vacuum was being done).  Alternatively,
         the index column could have an array of records, each containing
         all the information for a given index.
      2. Create a new view for just index vacuum progress information.
         This would have similar information as 1.  There would be an
         entry for each index that has been vacuumed, needs to be
         vacuumed, or is currently being vacuumed.  And there would be an
         easy way to join with pg_stat_progress_vacuum (e.g., leader_pid,
         which again might be the same as our index vacuum PID depending
         on whether we were doing parallel index vacuum).  Note that it
         would be possible for the PID of these entries to be null before
         and after we process the index.
      3. Instead of adding columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum, adjust the
         current ones to be more general, and then add new entries for
         each of the indexes that have been, need to be, or currently are
         being vacuumed.  This is the most similar option to your current
         proposal, but instead of introducing a column like
         index_blks_total, we'd rename heap_blks_total to blks_total and
         use that for both the heap and indexes.  I think we'd still want
         to add a leader_pid column.  Again, we have to be prepared for
         the PID to be null in this case.  Or we could just make the pid
         column always refer to the leader, and we could introduce a
         worker_pid column.  That might create confusion, though.

    I wish option #1 was cleaner, because I think it would be really nice
    to have all this information in a single row.  However, I don't expect
    much support for a 3-dimensional view, so I suspect option #2
    (creating a separate view for index vacuum progress) is the way to go.
    The other benefit of option #2 versus option #3 or your original
    proposal is that it cleanly separates the top-level vacuum operations
    and the index vacuum operations, which are related at the moment, but
    which might not always be tied so closely together.

Option #1 is not clean as you will need to unnest the array to make sense out of it. It will be too complex to use.
Option #3 I am reluctant to spent time looking at this option. It's more valuable to see progress per index instead of total. 
Option #2 was one that I originally designed but backed away as it was introducing a new view. Thinking about it a bit more, this is a cleaner approach. 
1. Having a view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker to join with pg_stat_progress_vacuum is clean
2. No changes required to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
3. I’ll lean towards calling the view " pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker" instead of " pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index", to perhaps allow us to track other items a vacuum worker may do in future releases. As of now, only indexes are vacuumed by workers.
I will rework the patch for option #2

    Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> — 2021-12-16T22:03:23Z

I had a similar question. And I'm still not clear from the response
what exactly index_blks_total is and whether it addresses it.

I think I agree that a user is likely to want to see the progress in a
way they can understand which means for a single index at a time.

I think what you're describing is that index_blks_total and
index_blks_scanned are the totals across all the indexes? That isn't
clear from the definitions but if that's what you intend then I think
that would work.

(For what it's worth what I was imagining was having a pair of
counters for blocks scanned and max blocks in this index and a second
counter for number of indexes processed and max number of indexes. But
I don't think that's necessarily any better than what you have)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2021-12-20T17:55:03Z

Here is a V2 attempt of the patch to include a new view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker. Also, scans for index cleanups will also have an entry in the new view.

- here is the new view which reports an entry for every worker ( or leader ) that is doing index vacuum/index cleanup work.
postgres=# select * from pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker  ;
-[ RECORD 1 ]------+------
pid                | 29355
leader_pid         | 26501
indrelid           | 16391
index_blks_total   | 68894
index_blks_scanned | 35618


- the view can be joined with pg_stat_progress_vacuum. Sample output below

postgres=# select a.*, b.phase, b.heap_blks_total, b.heap_blks_scanned from pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker a full outer join pg_stat_progress_vacuum b on a.pid = b.pid ;
  pid  | leader_pid | indrelid | index_blks_total | index_blks_scanned |        phase        | heap_blks_total | heap_blks_scanned
-------+------------+----------+------------------+--------------------+---------------------+-----------------+-------------------
 26667 |      26667 |    16391 |             9165 |                401 | cleaning up indexes |           20082 |             20082
(1 row)



postgres=# select a.*, b.phase, b.heap_blks_total, b.heap_blks_scanned from pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker a full outer join pg_stat_progress_vacuum b on a.pid = b.pid ;
-[ RECORD 1 ]------+------------------
pid                | 26501
leader_pid         | 26501
indrelid           | 16393
index_blks_total   | 145107
index_blks_scanned | 11060
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 165375
heap_blks_scanned  | 165375
-[ RECORD 2 ]------+------------------
pid                | 28982
leader_pid         | 26501
indrelid           | 16392
index_blks_total   | 47616
index_blks_scanned | 11861
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 0
heap_blks_scanned  | 0
-[ RECORD 3 ]------+------------------
pid                | 28983
leader_pid         | 26501
indrelid           | 16391
index_blks_total   | 56936
index_blks_scanned | 9138
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 0
heap_blks_scanned  | 0



    On 12/15/21, 4:10 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

        On 12/1/21, 3:02 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
        > The current implementation of pg_stat_progress_vacuum does not
        > provide progress on which index is being vacuumed making it
        > difficult for a user to determine if the "vacuuming indexes" phase
        > is making progress. By exposing which index is being scanned as well
        > as the total progress the scan has made for the current cycle, a
        > user can make better estimations on when the vacuum will complete.

        +1

        > The proposed patch adds 4 new columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum:
        >
        > 1. indrelid - the relid of the index being vacuumed
        > 2. index_blks_total - total number of blocks to be scanned in the
        > current cycle
        > 3. index_blks_scanned - number of blocks scanned in the current
        > cycle
        > 4. leader_pid - if the pid for the pg_stat_progress_vacuum entry is
        > a leader or a vacuum worker. This patch places an entry for every
        > worker pid ( if parallel ) as well as the leader pid

        nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
        is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.

    No, What is being tracked is the number of index blocks scanned from the total index blocks. The block will be scanned regardless if it will be vacuumed or not. 

        This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
        current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
        indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
        I think such information is necessary to truly understand the current
        progress of vacuuming indexes, and I can think of a couple of ways we
        might provide it:

          1. Make the new columns you've proposed return arrays.  This isn't
             very clean, but it would keep all the information for a given
             vacuum operation in a single row.  The indrelids column would be
             populated with all the indexes that have been vacuumed, need to
             be vacuumed, or are presently being vacuumed.  The other index-
             related columns would then have the associated stats and the
             worker PID (which might be the same as the pid column depending
             on whether parallel index vacuum was being done).  Alternatively,
             the index column could have an array of records, each containing
             all the information for a given index.
          2. Create a new view for just index vacuum progress information.
             This would have similar information as 1.  There would be an
             entry for each index that has been vacuumed, needs to be
             vacuumed, or is currently being vacuumed.  And there would be an
             easy way to join with pg_stat_progress_vacuum (e.g., leader_pid,
             which again might be the same as our index vacuum PID depending
             on whether we were doing parallel index vacuum).  Note that it
             would be possible for the PID of these entries to be null before
             and after we process the index.
          3. Instead of adding columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum, adjust the
             current ones to be more general, and then add new entries for
             each of the indexes that have been, need to be, or currently are
             being vacuumed.  This is the most similar option to your current
             proposal, but instead of introducing a column like
             index_blks_total, we'd rename heap_blks_total to blks_total and
             use that for both the heap and indexes.  I think we'd still want
             to add a leader_pid column.  Again, we have to be prepared for
             the PID to be null in this case.  Or we could just make the pid
             column always refer to the leader, and we could introduce a
             worker_pid column.  That might create confusion, though.

        I wish option #1 was cleaner, because I think it would be really nice
        to have all this information in a single row.  However, I don't expect
        much support for a 3-dimensional view, so I suspect option #2
        (creating a separate view for index vacuum progress) is the way to go.
        The other benefit of option #2 versus option #3 or your original
        proposal is that it cleanly separates the top-level vacuum operations
        and the index vacuum operations, which are related at the moment, but
        which might not always be tied so closely together.

    Option #1 is not clean as you will need to unnest the array to make sense out of it. It will be too complex to use.
    Option #3 I am reluctant to spent time looking at this option. It's more valuable to see progress per index instead of total. 
    Option #2 was one that I originally designed but backed away as it was introducing a new view. Thinking about it a bit more, this is a cleaner approach. 
    1. Having a view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker to join with pg_stat_progress_vacuum is clean
    2. No changes required to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
    3. I’ll lean towards calling the view " pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker" instead of " pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index", to perhaps allow us to track other items a vacuum worker may do in future releases. As of now, only indexes are vacuumed by workers.
    I will rework the patch for option #2

        Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2021-12-20T18:37:05Z

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
> is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.

+1.

> This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
> current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
> indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.

VACUUM will process a table's indexes in pg_class OID order (outside
of parallel VACUUM, I suppose). See comments about sort order above
RelationGetIndexList().

Anyway, it might be useful to add ordinal numbers to each index, that
line up with this processing/OID order. It would also be reasonable to
display the same number in log_autovacuum* (and VACUUM VERBOSE)
per-index output, to reinforce the idea. Note that we don't
necessarily display a distinct line for each distinct index in this
log output, which is why including the ordinal number there makes
sense.

> I wish option #1 was cleaner, because I think it would be really nice
> to have all this information in a single row.

I do too. I agree with the specific points you raise in your remarks
about what you've called options #2 and #3, but those options still
seem unappealing to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2021-12-20T19:05:47Z

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:59 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> The current implementation of pg_stat_progress_vacuum does not provide progress on which index is being vacuumed making it difficult for a user to determine if the "vacuuming indexes" phase is making progress.

I notice that your patch largely assumes that indexes can be treated
like heap relations, in the sense that they're scanned sequentially,
and process each block exactly once (or exactly once per "pass"). But
that isn't quite true. There are a few differences that seem like they
might matter:

* An ambulkdelete() scan of an index cannot take the size of the
relation once, at the start, and ignore any blocks that are added
after the scan begins. And so the code may need to re-establish the
total size of the index multiple times, to make sure no index tuples
are missed -- there may be index tuples that VACUUM needs to process
that appear in later pages due to concurrent page splits. You don't
have the issue with things like IndexBulkDeleteResult.num_pages,
because they report on the index after ambulkdelete/amvacuumcleanup
return (they're not granular progress indicators).

* Some index AMs don't work like nbtree and GiST in that they cannot
do their scan sequentially -- they have to do something like a
logical/keyspace order scan instead, which is *totally* different to
heapam (not just a bit different). There is no telling how many times
each page will be accessed in these other index AMs, and in what
order, even under optimal conditions. We should arguably not even try
to provide any granular progress information here, since it'll
probably be too messy.

I'm not sure what to recommend for your patch, in light of this. Maybe
you should change the names of the new columns to own the squishiness.
For example, instead of using the name index_blks_total, you might
instead use the name index_blks_initial. That might be enough to avoid
user confusion when we scan more blocks than the index initially
contained (within a single ambulkdelete scan).

Note also that we have to do something called backtracking in
btvacuumpage(), which you've ignored -- that's another reasonably
common way that we'll end up scanning a page twice. But that probably
should just be ignored -- it's too narrow a case to be worth caring
about.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> — 2021-12-20T19:27:26Z

This view also doesn't show vacuum progress across a partitioned table.

For comparison:

pg_stat_progress_create_index (added in v12) has:
partitions_total
partitions_done

pg_stat_progress_analyze (added in v13) has:
child_tables_total
child_tables_done

pg_stat_progress_cluster should have something similar.

-- 
Justin Pryzby
System Administrator
Telsasoft
+1-952-707-8581

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2021-12-23T08:44:37Z

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 3:37 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> > nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
> > is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.
>
> +1.
>
> > This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
> > current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
> > indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
>
> VACUUM will process a table's indexes in pg_class OID order (outside
> of parallel VACUUM, I suppose). See comments about sort order above
> RelationGetIndexList().

Right.

>
> Anyway, it might be useful to add ordinal numbers to each index, that
> line up with this processing/OID order. It would also be reasonable to
> display the same number in log_autovacuum* (and VACUUM VERBOSE)
> per-index output, to reinforce the idea. Note that we don't
> necessarily display a distinct line for each distinct index in this
> log output, which is why including the ordinal number there makes
> sense.

An alternative idea would be to show the number of indexes on the
table and the number of indexes that have been processed in the
leader's entry of pg_stat_progress_vacuum. Even in parallel vacuum
cases, since we have index vacuum status for each index it would not
be hard for the leader process to count how many indexes have been
processed.

Regarding the details of the progress of index vacuum, I'm not sure
this progress information can fit for pg_stat_progress_vacuum. As
Peter already mentioned, the behavior quite varies depending on index
AM.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> — 2021-12-23T10:49:59Z

On 21/12/2021 00:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> * Some index AMs don't work like nbtree and GiST in that they cannot
> do their scan sequentially -- they have to do something like a
> logical/keyspace order scan instead, which is *totally* different to
> heapam (not just a bit different). There is no telling how many times
> each page will be accessed in these other index AMs, and in what
> order, even under optimal conditions. We should arguably not even try
> to provide any granular progress information here, since it'll
> probably be too messy.

Maybe we could add callbacks into AM interface for 
send/receive/representation implementation of progress?
So AM would define a set of parameters to send into stat collector and 
show to users.

-- 
regards,
Andrey Lepikhov
Postgres Professional

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> — 2021-12-27T17:59:25Z

Please send your patches as *.diff or *.patch, so they're processed by the
patch tester.  Preferably with commit messages; git format-patch is the usual
tool for this.
http://cfbot.cputube.org/sami-imseih.html

(Occasionally, it's also useful to send a *.txt to avoid the cfbot processing
the wrong thing, in case one sends an unrelated, secondary patch, or sends
fixes to a patch as a "relative patch" which doesn't include the main patch.)

I'm including a patch rebased on 8e1fae193.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2021-12-28T00:13:16Z

I do agree that tracking progress by # of blocks scanned is not deterministic for all index types.

Based on this feedback, I went back to the drawing board on this. 

Something like below may make more sense.

In pg_stat_progress_vacuum, introduce 2 new columns:

1. total_index_vacuum   - total # of indexes to vacuum
2. max_cycle_time - the time in seconds of the longest index cycle. 

Introduce another view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index_cycle:

postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index_cycle
       View "public.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker"
     Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
pid            | integer |           |          |				<<<-- the PID of the vacuum worker ( or leader if it's doing index vacuuming )
leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |				<<<-- the leader PID to allow this view to be joined back to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
indrelid       | bigint  |           |          |				<<<- the index relid of the index being vacuumed
ordinal_position | bigint |           |          |				<<<- the processing position, which will give an idea of the processing position of the index being vacuumed. 
dead_tuples_removed | bigint | |				<<<- the number of dead rows removed in the current cycle for the index.

Having this information, one can

1. Determine which index is being vacuumed. For monitoring tools, this can help identify the index that accounts for most of the index vacuuming time.
2. Having the processing order of the current index will allow the user to determine how many of the total indexes has been completed in the current cycle.
3. dead_tuples_removed will show progress on the index vacuum in the current cycle.
4. the max_cycle_time will give an idea on how long the longest index cycle took for the current vacuum operation.


On 12/23/21, 2:46 AM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.



    On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 3:37 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
    > > nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
    > > is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.
    >
    > +1.
    >
    > > This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
    > > current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
    > > indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
    >
    > VACUUM will process a table's indexes in pg_class OID order (outside
    > of parallel VACUUM, I suppose). See comments about sort order above
    > RelationGetIndexList().

    Right.

    >
    > Anyway, it might be useful to add ordinal numbers to each index, that
    > line up with this processing/OID order. It would also be reasonable to
    > display the same number in log_autovacuum* (and VACUUM VERBOSE)
    > per-index output, to reinforce the idea. Note that we don't
    > necessarily display a distinct line for each distinct index in this
    > log output, which is why including the ordinal number there makes
    > sense.

    An alternative idea would be to show the number of indexes on the
    table and the number of indexes that have been processed in the
    leader's entry of pg_stat_progress_vacuum. Even in parallel vacuum
    cases, since we have index vacuum status for each index it would not
    be hard for the leader process to count how many indexes have been
    processed.

    Regarding the details of the progress of index vacuum, I'm not sure
    this progress information can fit for pg_stat_progress_vacuum. As
    Peter already mentioned, the behavior quite varies depending on index
    AM.

    Regards,


    --
    Masahiko Sawada
    EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2021-12-29T16:44:31Z

Attached is the latest revision of the patch.

In "pg_stat_progress_vacuum", introduce 2 columns:

* total_index_vacuum : This is the # of indexes that will be vacuumed. Keep in mind that if failsafe mode kicks in mid-flight to the vacuum, Postgres may choose to forgo index scans. This value will be adjusted accordingly.
* max_index_vacuum_cycle_time : The total elapsed time for a index vacuum cycle is calculated and this value will be updated to reflect the longest vacuum cycle. Until the first cycle completes, this value will be 0. The purpose of this column is to give the user an idea of how long an index vacuum cycle takes to complete.

postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
-----------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
pid | integer | | |
datid | oid | | |
datname | name | | |
relid | oid | | |
phase | text | | |
heap_blks_total | bigint | | |
heap_blks_scanned | bigint | | |
heap_blks_vacuumed | bigint | | |
index_vacuum_count | bigint | | |
max_dead_tuples | bigint | | |
num_dead_tuples | bigint | | |
total_index_vacuum | bigint | | |
max_index_vacuum_cycle_time | bigint | | |



Introduce a new view called "pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index". This view will track the progress of a worker ( or leader PID ) while it's vacuuming an index. It will expose some key columns:

* pid: The PID of the worker process

* leader_pid: The PID of the leader process. This is the column that can be joined with "pg_stat_progress_vacuum". leader_pid and pid can have the same value as a leader can also perform an index vacuum.

* indrelid: The relid of the index currently being vacuumed

* vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position: The processing position of the index being vacuumed. This can be useful to determine how many indexes out of the total indexes ( pg_stat_progress_vacuum.total_index_vacuum ) have been vacuumed

* index_tuples_vacuumed: This is the number of index tuples vacuumed for the index overall. This is useful to show that the vacuum is actually doing work, as the # of tuples keeps increasing. 

postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
-------------------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
pid | integer | | |
leader_pid | bigint | | |
indrelid | bigint | | |
vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position | bigint | | |
index_tuples_vacuumed | bigint | | |








On 12/27/21, 6:12 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    I do agree that tracking progress by # of blocks scanned is not deterministic for all index types.

    Based on this feedback, I went back to the drawing board on this. 

    Something like below may make more sense.

    In pg_stat_progress_vacuum, introduce 2 new columns:

    1. total_index_vacuum   - total # of indexes to vacuum
    2. max_cycle_time - the time in seconds of the longest index cycle. 

    Introduce another view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index_cycle:

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index_cycle
           View "public.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_worker"
         Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
    pid            | integer |           |          |				<<<-- the PID of the vacuum worker ( or leader if it's doing index vacuuming )
    leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |				<<<-- the leader PID to allow this view to be joined back to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
    indrelid       | bigint  |           |          |				<<<- the index relid of the index being vacuumed
    ordinal_position | bigint |           |          |				<<<- the processing position, which will give an idea of the processing position of the index being vacuumed. 
    dead_tuples_removed | bigint | |				<<<- the number of dead rows removed in the current cycle for the index.

    Having this information, one can

    1. Determine which index is being vacuumed. For monitoring tools, this can help identify the index that accounts for most of the index vacuuming time.
    2. Having the processing order of the current index will allow the user to determine how many of the total indexes has been completed in the current cycle.
    3. dead_tuples_removed will show progress on the index vacuum in the current cycle.
    4. the max_cycle_time will give an idea on how long the longest index cycle took for the current vacuum operation.


    On 12/23/21, 2:46 AM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

        CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.



        On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 3:37 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
        >
        > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:10 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
        > > nitpick: Shouldn't index_blks_scanned be index_blks_vacuumed?  IMO it
        > > is more analogous to heap_blks_vacuumed.
        >
        > +1.
        >
        > > This will tell us which indexes are currently being vacuumed and the
        > > current progress of those operations, but it doesn't tell us which
        > > indexes have already been vacuumed or which ones are pending vacuum.
        >
        > VACUUM will process a table's indexes in pg_class OID order (outside
        > of parallel VACUUM, I suppose). See comments about sort order above
        > RelationGetIndexList().

        Right.

        >
        > Anyway, it might be useful to add ordinal numbers to each index, that
        > line up with this processing/OID order. It would also be reasonable to
        > display the same number in log_autovacuum* (and VACUUM VERBOSE)
        > per-index output, to reinforce the idea. Note that we don't
        > necessarily display a distinct line for each distinct index in this
        > log output, which is why including the ordinal number there makes
        > sense.

        An alternative idea would be to show the number of indexes on the
        table and the number of indexes that have been processed in the
        leader's entry of pg_stat_progress_vacuum. Even in parallel vacuum
        cases, since we have index vacuum status for each index it would not
        be hard for the leader process to count how many indexes have been
        processed.

        Regarding the details of the progress of index vacuum, I'm not sure
        this progress information can fit for pg_stat_progress_vacuum. As
        Peter already mentioned, the behavior quite varies depending on index
        AM.

        Regards,


        --
        Masahiko Sawada
        EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> — 2021-12-29T17:51:21Z

http://cfbot.cputube.org/sami-imseih.html
You should run "make check" and update rules.out.

You should also use make check-world - usually something like:
make check-world -j4 >check-world.out 2>&1 ; echo ret $?

> indrelid: The relid of the index currently being vacuumed

I think it should be called indexrelid not indrelid, for consistency with
pg_index.

> S.param10 vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position,
> S.param13 index_rows_vacuumed

These should both say "AS" for consistency.

system_views.sql is using tabs, but should use spaces for consistency.

> #include "commands/progress.h"

The postgres convention is to alphabetize the includes.

>       /* VACCUM operation's longest index scan cycle */

VACCUM => VACUUM

Ultimately you'll also need to update the docs.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2021-12-31T05:59:15Z

Attaching the latest revision of the patch with the fixes suggested. Also ran make check and make check-world successfully.


On 12/29/21, 11:51 AM, "Justin Pryzby" <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:

    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.



    http://cfbot.cputube.org/sami-imseih.html
    You should run "make check" and update rules.out.

    You should also use make check-world - usually something like:
    make check-world -j4 >check-world.out 2>&1 ; echo ret $?

    > indrelid: The relid of the index currently being vacuumed

    I think it should be called indexrelid not indrelid, for consistency with
    pg_index.

    > S.param10 vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position,
    > S.param13 index_rows_vacuumed

    These should both say "AS" for consistency.

    system_views.sql is using tabs, but should use spaces for consistency.

    > #include "commands/progress.h"

    The postgres convention is to alphabetize the includes.

    >       /* VACCUM operation's longest index scan cycle */

    VACCUM => VACUUM

    Ultimately you'll also need to update the docs.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com> — 2022-01-06T20:41:30Z

On 12/29/21, 8:44 AM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> In "pg_stat_progress_vacuum", introduce 2 columns:
>
> * total_index_vacuum : This is the # of indexes that will be vacuumed. Keep in mind that if failsafe mode kicks in mid-flight to the vacuum, Postgres may choose to forgo index scans. This value will be adjusted accordingly.
> * max_index_vacuum_cycle_time : The total elapsed time for a index vacuum cycle is calculated and this value will be updated to reflect the longest vacuum cycle. Until the first cycle completes, this value will be 0. The purpose of this column is to give the user an idea of how long an index vacuum cycle takes to complete.

I think that total_index_vacuum is a good thing to have.  I would
expect this to usually just be the number of indexes on the table, but
as you pointed out, this can be different when we are skipping
indexes.  My only concern with this new column is the potential for
confusion when compared with the index_vacuum_count value.
index_vacuum_count indicates the number of vacuum cycles completed,
but total_index_vacuum indicates the number of indexes that will be
vacuumed.  However, the names sound like they could refer to the same
thing to me.  Perhaps we should rename index_vacuum_count to
index_vacuum_cycles/index_vacuum_cycle_count, and the new column
should be something like num_indexes_to_vacuum or index_vacuum_total.

I don't think we need the max_index_vacuum_cycle_time column.  While
the idea is to give users a rough estimate for how long an index cycle
will take, I don't think it will help generate any meaningful
estimates for how much longer the vacuum operation will take.  IIUC we
won't have any idea how many total index vacuum cycles will be needed.
Even if we did, the current cycle could take much more or much less
time.  Also, none of the other progress views seem to provide any
timing information, which I suspect is by design to avoid inaccurate
estimates.

> Introduce a new view called "pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index". This view will track the progress of a worker ( or leader PID ) while it's vacuuming an index. It will expose some key columns:
>
> * pid: The PID of the worker process
>
> * leader_pid: The PID of the leader process. This is the column that can be joined with "pg_stat_progress_vacuum". leader_pid and pid can have the same value as a leader can also perform an index vacuum.
>
> * indrelid: The relid of the index currently being vacuumed
>
> * vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position: The processing position of the index being vacuumed. This can be useful to determine how many indexes out of the total indexes ( pg_stat_progress_vacuum.total_index_vacuum ) have been vacuumed
>
> * index_tuples_vacuumed: This is the number of index tuples vacuumed for the index overall. This is useful to show that the vacuum is actually doing work, as the # of tuples keeps increasing. 

Should we also provide some information for determining the progress
of the current cycle?  Perhaps there should be an
index_tuples_vacuumed_current_cycle column that users can compare with
the num_dead_tuples value in pg_stat_progress_vacuum.  However,
perhaps the number of tuples vacuumed in the current cycle can already
be discovered via index_tuples_vacuumed % max_dead_tuples.

+void
+rusage_adjust(const PGRUsage *ru0, PGRUsage *ru1)
+{
+	if (ru1->tv.tv_usec < ru0->tv.tv_usec)
+	{
+		ru1->tv.tv_sec--;
+		ru1->tv.tv_usec += 1000000;
+	}
+	if (ru1->ru.ru_stime.tv_usec < ru0->ru.ru_stime.tv_usec)
+	{
+		ru1->ru.ru_stime.tv_sec--;
+		ru1->ru.ru_stime.tv_usec += 1000000;
+	}
+	if (ru1->ru.ru_utime.tv_usec < ru0->ru.ru_utime.tv_usec)
+	{
+		ru1->ru.ru_utime.tv_sec--;
+		ru1->ru.ru_utime.tv_usec += 1000000;
+	}
+}

I think this function could benefit from a comment.  Without going
through it line by line, it is not clear to me exactly what it is
doing.

I know we're still working on what exactly this stuff should look
like, but I would suggest adding the documentation changes in the near
future.

Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-07T02:14:36Z

Thanks for the review.

I am hesitant to make column name changes for obvious reasons, as it breaks existing tooling. However, I think there is a really good case to change "index_vacuum_count" as the name is confusing. "index_vacuum_cycles_completed" is the name I suggest if we agree to rename.

For the new column, "num_indexes_to_vacuum" is good with me. 

As far as  max_index_vacuum_cycle_time goes, Besides the points you make, another reason is that until one cycle completes, this value will remain at 0. It will not be helpful data for most vacuum cases. Removing it also reduces the complexity of the patch. 




On 1/6/22, 2:41 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

    On 12/29/21, 8:44 AM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
    > In "pg_stat_progress_vacuum", introduce 2 columns:
    >
    > * total_index_vacuum : This is the # of indexes that will be vacuumed. Keep in mind that if failsafe mode kicks in mid-flight to the vacuum, Postgres may choose to forgo index scans. This value will be adjusted accordingly.
    > * max_index_vacuum_cycle_time : The total elapsed time for a index vacuum cycle is calculated and this value will be updated to reflect the longest vacuum cycle. Until the first cycle completes, this value will be 0. The purpose of this column is to give the user an idea of how long an index vacuum cycle takes to complete.

    I think that total_index_vacuum is a good thing to have.  I would
    expect this to usually just be the number of indexes on the table, but
    as you pointed out, this can be different when we are skipping
    indexes.  My only concern with this new column is the potential for
    confusion when compared with the index_vacuum_count value.
    index_vacuum_count indicates the number of vacuum cycles completed,
    but total_index_vacuum indicates the number of indexes that will be
    vacuumed.  However, the names sound like they could refer to the same
    thing to me.  Perhaps we should rename index_vacuum_count to
    index_vacuum_cycles/index_vacuum_cycle_count, and the new column
    should be something like num_indexes_to_vacuum or index_vacuum_total.

    I don't think we need the max_index_vacuum_cycle_time column.  While
    the idea is to give users a rough estimate for how long an index cycle
    will take, I don't think it will help generate any meaningful
    estimates for how much longer the vacuum operation will take.  IIUC we
    won't have any idea how many total index vacuum cycles will be needed.
    Even if we did, the current cycle could take much more or much less
    time.  Also, none of the other progress views seem to provide any
    timing information, which I suspect is by design to avoid inaccurate
    estimates.

    > Introduce a new view called "pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index". This view will track the progress of a worker ( or leader PID ) while it's vacuuming an index. It will expose some key columns:
    >
    > * pid: The PID of the worker process
    >
    > * leader_pid: The PID of the leader process. This is the column that can be joined with "pg_stat_progress_vacuum". leader_pid and pid can have the same value as a leader can also perform an index vacuum.
    >
    > * indrelid: The relid of the index currently being vacuumed
    >
    > * vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position: The processing position of the index being vacuumed. This can be useful to determine how many indexes out of the total indexes ( pg_stat_progress_vacuum.total_index_vacuum ) have been vacuumed
    >
    > * index_tuples_vacuumed: This is the number of index tuples vacuumed for the index overall. This is useful to show that the vacuum is actually doing work, as the # of tuples keeps increasing. 

    Should we also provide some information for determining the progress
    of the current cycle?  Perhaps there should be an
    index_tuples_vacuumed_current_cycle column that users can compare with
    the num_dead_tuples value in pg_stat_progress_vacuum.  However,
    perhaps the number of tuples vacuumed in the current cycle can already
    be discovered via index_tuples_vacuumed % max_dead_tuples.

    +void
    +rusage_adjust(const PGRUsage *ru0, PGRUsage *ru1)
    +{
    +	if (ru1->tv.tv_usec < ru0->tv.tv_usec)
    +	{
    +		ru1->tv.tv_sec--;
    +		ru1->tv.tv_usec += 1000000;
    +	}
    +	if (ru1->ru.ru_stime.tv_usec < ru0->ru.ru_stime.tv_usec)
    +	{
    +		ru1->ru.ru_stime.tv_sec--;
    +		ru1->ru.ru_stime.tv_usec += 1000000;
    +	}
    +	if (ru1->ru.ru_utime.tv_usec < ru0->ru.ru_utime.tv_usec)
    +	{
    +		ru1->ru.ru_utime.tv_sec--;
    +		ru1->ru.ru_utime.tv_usec += 1000000;
    +	}
    +}

    I think this function could benefit from a comment.  Without going
    through it line by line, it is not clear to me exactly what it is
    doing.

    I know we're still working on what exactly this stuff should look
    like, but I would suggest adding the documentation changes in the near
    future.

    Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com> — 2022-01-10T18:30:09Z

On 1/6/22, 6:14 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> I am hesitant to make column name changes for obvious reasons, as it breaks existing tooling. However, I think there is a really good case to change "index_vacuum_count" as the name is confusing. "index_vacuum_cycles_completed" is the name I suggest if we agree to rename.
>
> For the new column, "num_indexes_to_vacuum" is good with me. 

Yeah, I think we can skip renaming index_vacuum_count for now.  In any
case, it would probably be good to discuss that in a separate thread.

Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-11T01:01:20Z

I agree, Renaming "index_vacuum_count" can be taken up in a separate discussion.

I have attached the 3rd revision of the patch which also includes the documentation changes. Also attached is a rendered html of the docs for review.

"max_index_vacuum_cycle_time" has been removed.
"index_rows_vacuumed" renamed to "index_tuples_removed". "tuples" is a more consistent with the terminology used.
"vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position" renamed to "index_ordinal_position".

On 1/10/22, 12:30 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

    On 1/6/22, 6:14 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
    > I am hesitant to make column name changes for obvious reasons, as it breaks existing tooling. However, I think there is a really good case to change "index_vacuum_count" as the name is confusing. "index_vacuum_cycles_completed" is the name I suggest if we agree to rename.
    >
    > For the new column, "num_indexes_to_vacuum" is good with me. 

    Yeah, I think we can skip renaming index_vacuum_count for now.  In any
    case, it would probably be good to discuss that in a separate thread.

    Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com> — 2022-01-11T19:01:37Z

On 1/10/22, 5:01 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> I have attached the 3rd revision of the patch which also includes the documentation changes. Also attached is a rendered html of the docs for review.
>
> "max_index_vacuum_cycle_time" has been removed.
> "index_rows_vacuumed" renamed to "index_tuples_removed". "tuples" is a more consistent with the terminology used.
> "vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position" renamed to "index_ordinal_position".

Thanks for the new version of the patch!

nitpick: I get one whitespace error when applying the patch.

        Applying: Expose progress for the "vacuuming indexes" phase of a VACUUM operation.
        .git/rebase-apply/patch:44: tab in indent.
           Whenever <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-failsafe-age"/> is triggered, index
        warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>num_indexes_to_vacuum</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       The number of indexes that will be vacuumed. Only indexes with
+       <literal>pg_index.indisready</literal> set to "true" will be vacuumed.
+       Whenever <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-failsafe-age"/> is triggered, index
+       vacuuming will be bypassed.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>
+    </tbody>
+   </tgroup>
+  </table>

We may want to avoid exhaustively listing the cases when this value
will be zero.  I would suggest saying, "When index cleanup is skipped,
this value will be zero" instead.

+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>relid</structfield> <type>oid</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       OID of the table being vacuumed.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>

Do we need to include this field?  I would expect indexrelid to go
here.

+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>leader_pid</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       Process ID of the parallel group leader. This field is <literal>NULL</literal>
+       if this process is a parallel group leader or the
+       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> phase is not performed in parallel.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>

Are there cases where the parallel group leader will have an entry in
this view when parallelism is enabled?

+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>index_ordinal_position</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       The order in which the index is being vacuumed. Indexes are vacuumed by OID in ascending order.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>

Should we include the bit about the OID ordering?  I suppose that is
unlikely to change in the near future, but I don't know if it is
relevant information.  Also, do we need to include the "index_"
prefix?  This view is specific for indexes.  (I have the same question
for index_tuples_removed.)

Should this new table go after the "VACUUM phases" table?  It might
make sense to keep the phases table closer to where it is referenced.

+    /* Advertise the number of indexes to vacuum if we are not in failsafe mode */
+    if (!lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe(vacrel))
+        pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_TOTAL_INDEX_VACUUM, vacrel->nindexes);

Shouldn't this be 0 when INDEX_CLEANUP is off, too?

+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_CURRENT_INDRELID         7
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_LEADER_PID               8
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_ORDINAL            9
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_TOTAL_INDEX_VACUUM       10
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_DEAD_TUPLES_VACUUMED     11

nitpick: I would suggest the following names to match the existing
style:

        PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_INDEXES_TO_VACUUM
        PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_LEADER_PID
        PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_INDEXRELID
        PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_ORDINAL_POSITION
        PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_TUPLES_REMOVED

Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-11T20:33:16Z

On 1/11/22, 1:01 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

    On 1/10/22, 5:01 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
    > I have attached the 3rd revision of the patch which also includes the documentation changes. Also attached is a rendered html of the docs for review.
    >
    > "max_index_vacuum_cycle_time" has been removed.
    > "index_rows_vacuumed" renamed to "index_tuples_removed". "tuples" is a more consistent with the terminology used.
    > "vacuum_cycle_ordinal_position" renamed to "index_ordinal_position".

    Thanks for the new version of the patch!

    nitpick: I get one whitespace error when applying the patch.

            Applying: Expose progress for the "vacuuming indexes" phase of a VACUUM operation.
            .git/rebase-apply/patch:44: tab in indent.
               Whenever <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-failsafe-age"/> is triggered, index
            warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.

That was missed. Will fix it.

    +     <row>
    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
    +       <structfield>num_indexes_to_vacuum</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
    +      </para>
    +      <para>
    +       The number of indexes that will be vacuumed. Only indexes with
    +       <literal>pg_index.indisready</literal> set to "true" will be vacuumed.
    +       Whenever <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-failsafe-age"/> is triggered, index
    +       vacuuming will be bypassed.
    +      </para></entry>
    +     </row>
    +    </tbody>
    +   </tgroup>
    +  </table>

    We may want to avoid exhaustively listing the cases when this value
    will be zero.  I would suggest saying, "When index cleanup is skipped,
    this value will be zero" instead.

What about something like  "The number of indexes that are eligible for vacuuming".
This covers the cases where either an individual index is skipped or the entire "index vacuuming" phase is skipped.

    +     <row>
    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
    +       <structfield>relid</structfield> <type>oid</type>
    +      </para>
    +      <para>
    +       OID of the table being vacuumed.
    +      </para></entry>
    +     </row>

    Do we need to include this field?  I would expect indexrelid to go
    here.

Having indexrelid and relid makes the pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view "self-contained". A user can lookup the index and table being vacuumed without joining back to pg_stat_progress_vacuum.

    +     <row>
    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
    +       <structfield>leader_pid</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
    +      </para>
    +      <para>
    +       Process ID of the parallel group leader. This field is <literal>NULL</literal>
    +       if this process is a parallel group leader or the
    +       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> phase is not performed in parallel.
    +      </para></entry>
    +     </row>

    Are there cases where the parallel group leader will have an entry in
    this view when parallelism is enabled?

Yes. A parallel group leader can perform an index vacuum just like a parallel worker. If you do something like "vacuum (parallel 3) ", you may have up to 4 processes vacuuming indexes. The leader + 3 workers. 

    +     <row>
    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
    +       <structfield>index_ordinal_position</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
    +      </para>
    +      <para>
    +       The order in which the index is being vacuumed. Indexes are vacuumed by OID in ascending order.
    +      </para></entry>
    +     </row>

    Should we include the bit about the OID ordering?  I suppose that is
    unlikely to change in the near future, but I don't know if it is
    relevant information.  Also, do we need to include the "index_"
    prefix?  This view is specific for indexes.  (I have the same question
    for index_tuples_removed.)

I was on the fence about both of these as well. Will make a change to this.

    Should this new table go after the "VACUUM phases" table?  It might
    make sense to keep the phases table closer to where it is referenced.

I did not think that would read better. The introduction discusses both views and the "phase" table is linked from the pg_stat_progress_vacuum 

    +    /* Advertise the number of indexes to vacuum if we are not in failsafe mode */
    +    if (!lazy_check_wraparound_failsafe(vacrel))
    +        pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_TOTAL_INDEX_VACUUM, vacrel->nindexes);

    Shouldn't this be 0 when INDEX_CLEANUP is off, too?

This view is only covering the "vacuum index" phase, but it should also cover index_cleanup phase as well. Will update the patch.

    +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_CURRENT_INDRELID         7
    +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_LEADER_PID               8
    +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_ORDINAL            9
    +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_TOTAL_INDEX_VACUUM       10
    +#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_DEAD_TUPLES_VACUUMED     11

    nitpick: I would suggest the following names to match the existing
    style:

            PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_INDEXES_TO_VACUUM
            PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_LEADER_PID
            PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_INDEXRELID
            PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_ORDINAL_POSITION
            PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_TUPLES_REMOVED

That looks better.

    Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com> — 2022-01-11T22:18:24Z

On 1/11/22, 12:33 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> What about something like  "The number of indexes that are eligible for vacuuming".
> This covers the cases where either an individual index is skipped or the entire "index vacuuming" phase is skipped.

Hm.  I don't know if "eligible" is the right word.  An index can be
eligible for vacuuming but skipped because we set INDEX_CLEANUP to
false.  Maybe we should just stick with "The number of indexes that
will be vacuumed."  The only thing we may want to clarify is whether
this value will change in some cases (e.g., vacuum failsafe takes
effect).

Nathan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-01-12T07:44:37Z

(We had better avoid top-posting[1])

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:01 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> I agree, Renaming "index_vacuum_count" can be taken up in a separate discussion.
>
> I have attached the 3rd revision of the patch which also includes the documentation changes. Also attached is a rendered html of the docs for review.

Thank you for updating the patch!

Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
view is expected to be used together with and joined to
pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
(index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
infer from this value (without a total number)?

Regards,

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <bossartn@amazon.com> — 2022-01-12T19:28:23Z

On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
> to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
> view is expected to be used together with and joined to
> pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
> information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
> that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
> column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
> (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
But is that really better than having a separate view?

> Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
> infer from this value (without a total number)?

I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

Nathan

[0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-13T03:52:46Z

On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

    On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
    > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
    > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
    > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
    > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
    > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
    > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
    > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

 > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
 > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
 > But is that really better than having a separate view?

To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

    > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
    > infer from this value (without a total number)?

>    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
>   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
>    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

    Nathan

    [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-27T02:07:51Z

Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
            View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
        Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
 pid                  | integer |           |          |
 datid                | oid     |           |          |
 datname              | name    |           |          |
 relid                | oid     |           |          |
 phase                | text    |           |          |
 heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
 heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
 heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
 index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
 max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
 num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
 index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
 index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
      View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
     Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
 pid            | integer |           |          |
 datid          | oid     |           |          |
 datname        | name    |           |          |
 indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
 phase          | text    |           |          |
 leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
 tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

        On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
        > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
        > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
        > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
        > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
        > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
        > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
        > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
        > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

     > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
     > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
     > But is that really better than having a separate view?

    To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
    Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

        > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
        > infer from this value (without a total number)?

    >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
    >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
    >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

    The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

        Nathan

        [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-27T02:15:16Z

My apologies. The last attachment of documentation was the wrong file. Attached is the correct documentation file.

Thanks 

On 1/26/22, 8:07 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

    This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
    index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
    index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
                View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
            Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid                  | integer |           |          |
     datid                | oid     |           |          |
     datname              | name    |           |          |
     relid                | oid     |           |          |
     phase                | text    |           |          |
     heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
     heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
     heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
     index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
     max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
     num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
     index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
     index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

    The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

    Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
    Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
    tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
          View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
         Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid            | integer |           |          |
     datid          | oid     |           |          |
     datname        | name    |           |          |
     indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
     phase          | text    |           |          |
     leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
     tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



    On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

        On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

            On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
            > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
            > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
            > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
            > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
            > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
            > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
            > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
            > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

         > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
         > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
         > But is that really better than having a separate view?

        To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
        Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

            > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
            > infer from this value (without a total number)?

        >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
        >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
        >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

        The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

            Nathan

            [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-01-27T21:09:05Z

Resending patch as I see the last attachment was not annotated to the commitfest entry.

On 1/26/22, 8:07 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

    This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
    index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
    index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
                View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
            Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid                  | integer |           |          |
     datid                | oid     |           |          |
     datname              | name    |           |          |
     relid                | oid     |           |          |
     phase                | text    |           |          |
     heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
     heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
     heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
     index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
     max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
     num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
     index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
     index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

    The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

    Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
    Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
    tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
          View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
         Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid            | integer |           |          |
     datid          | oid     |           |          |
     datname        | name    |           |          |
     indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
     phase          | text    |           |          |
     leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
     tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



    On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

        On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

            On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
            > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
            > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
            > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
            > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
            > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
            > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
            > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
            > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

         > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
         > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
         > But is that really better than having a separate view?

        To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
        Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

            > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
            > infer from this value (without a total number)?

        >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
        >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
        >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

        The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

            Nathan

            [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-02-01T20:33:16Z

After speaking with Nathan offline, A few changes have been made to the patch.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, tracking how many indexes are processed in PARALLEL vacuum mode is not very straightforward since only the workers or leader process have ability to inspect the Vacuum shared parallel state. 

The latest version of the patch introduces a shared memory to track indexes vacuumed/cleaned by each worker ( or leader ) in a PARALLEL vacuum. In order to present this data in the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view, the value of the new column "indexes_processed"  is retrieved from shared memory by pg_stat_get_progress_info. For non-parallel vacuums, the value of "indexes_processed" is retrieved from the backend progress array directly. 

The patch also includes the changes to implement the new view pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index which exposes the index being vacuumed/cleaned up.

postgres=# \d+ pg_stat_progress_vacuum ;
                       View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
       Column       |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage  | Description
--------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+-------------
 pid                | integer |           |          |         | plain    |
 datid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
 datname            | name    |           |          |         | plain    |
 relid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
 phase              | text    |           |          |         | extended |
 heap_blks_total    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
 heap_blks_scanned  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
 heap_blks_vacuumed | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
 index_vacuum_count | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
 max_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
 num_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
 indexes_total      | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column
 indexes_processed  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column


<<<--- new view --->>>

postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
      View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
     Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
 pid            | integer |           |          |
 datid          | oid     |           |          |
 datname        | name    |           |          |
 indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
 leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
 phase          | text    |           |          |
 tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



On 1/26/22, 8:07 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

    This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
    index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
    index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
                View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
            Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid                  | integer |           |          |
     datid                | oid     |           |          |
     datname              | name    |           |          |
     relid                | oid     |           |          |
     phase                | text    |           |          |
     heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
     heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
     heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
     index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
     max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
     num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
     index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
     index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

    The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

    Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
    Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
    tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
          View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
         Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid            | integer |           |          |
     datid          | oid     |           |          |
     datname        | name    |           |          |
     indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
     phase          | text    |           |          |
     leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
     tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



    On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

        On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

            On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
            > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
            > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
            > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
            > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
            > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
            > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
            > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
            > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

         > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
         > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
         > But is that really better than having a separate view?

        To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
        Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

            > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
            > infer from this value (without a total number)?

        >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
        >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
        >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

        The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

            Nathan

            [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-02-10T19:39:56Z

Attached is the latest version of the patch to deal with the changes in the recent commit aa64f23b02924724eafbd9eadbf26d85df30a12b

On 2/1/22, 2:32 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    After speaking with Nathan offline, A few changes have been made to the patch.

    As mentioned earlier in the thread, tracking how many indexes are processed in PARALLEL vacuum mode is not very straightforward since only the workers or leader process have ability to inspect the Vacuum shared parallel state. 

    The latest version of the patch introduces a shared memory to track indexes vacuumed/cleaned by each worker ( or leader ) in a PARALLEL vacuum. In order to present this data in the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view, the value of the new column "indexes_processed"  is retrieved from shared memory by pg_stat_get_progress_info. For non-parallel vacuums, the value of "indexes_processed" is retrieved from the backend progress array directly. 

    The patch also includes the changes to implement the new view pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index which exposes the index being vacuumed/cleaned up.

    postgres=# \d+ pg_stat_progress_vacuum ;
                           View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
           Column       |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage  | Description
    --------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+-------------
     pid                | integer |           |          |         | plain    |
     datid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
     datname            | name    |           |          |         | plain    |
     relid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
     phase              | text    |           |          |         | extended |
     heap_blks_total    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
     heap_blks_scanned  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
     heap_blks_vacuumed | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
     index_vacuum_count | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
     max_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
     num_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
     indexes_total      | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column
     indexes_processed  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column


    <<<--- new view --->>>

    postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
          View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
         Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
    ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
     pid            | integer |           |          |
     datid          | oid     |           |          |
     datname        | name    |           |          |
     indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
     leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
     phase          | text    |           |          |
     tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



    On 1/26/22, 8:07 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

        Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

        This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
        index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
        index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

        postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
                    View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
                Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
        ----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
         pid                  | integer |           |          |
         datid                | oid     |           |          |
         datname              | name    |           |          |
         relid                | oid     |           |          |
         phase                | text    |           |          |
         heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
         heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
         heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
         index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
         max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
         num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
         index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
         index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

        The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

        Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
        Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
        tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

        postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
              View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
             Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
        ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
         pid            | integer |           |          |
         datid          | oid     |           |          |
         datname        | name    |           |          |
         indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
         phase          | text    |           |          |
         leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
         tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



        On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

            On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

                On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
                > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
                > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
                > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
                > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
                > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
                > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
                > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
                > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

             > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
             > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
             > But is that really better than having a separate view?

            To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
            Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

                > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
                > infer from this value (without a total number)?

            >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
            >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
            >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

            The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

                Nathan

                [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-02-17T13:52:23Z

The change has been broken up as 3 separate patches.

0007-Expose-progress-for-the-vacuuming-indexes-and-cleani.patch - Introduces 2 new columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum, indexes_total and indexes_processed. These 2 columns will provide progress on the index vacuuming/cleanup.
0001-Expose-the-index-being-processed-in-the-vacuuming-in.patch - Introduces a new view called pg_stat_prgoress_vacuum_index. This view tracks the index being vacuumed/cleaned and the total number of index tuples removed.
0001-Rename-index_vacuum_count-to-index_vacuum_cycle_coun.patch - Renames the existing index_vacuum_count to index_vacuum_cycle_count in pg_stat_progress_vacuum. Due to the other changes, it makes sense to include "cycle" in the column name to be crystal clear that the column refers to the index cycle count.

Thanks

On 2/10/22, 1:39 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

    Attached is the latest version of the patch to deal with the changes in the recent commit aa64f23b02924724eafbd9eadbf26d85df30a12b

    On 2/1/22, 2:32 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

        After speaking with Nathan offline, A few changes have been made to the patch.

        As mentioned earlier in the thread, tracking how many indexes are processed in PARALLEL vacuum mode is not very straightforward since only the workers or leader process have ability to inspect the Vacuum shared parallel state. 

        The latest version of the patch introduces a shared memory to track indexes vacuumed/cleaned by each worker ( or leader ) in a PARALLEL vacuum. In order to present this data in the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view, the value of the new column "indexes_processed"  is retrieved from shared memory by pg_stat_get_progress_info. For non-parallel vacuums, the value of "indexes_processed" is retrieved from the backend progress array directly. 

        The patch also includes the changes to implement the new view pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index which exposes the index being vacuumed/cleaned up.

        postgres=# \d+ pg_stat_progress_vacuum ;
                               View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
               Column       |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage  | Description
        --------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+-------------
         pid                | integer |           |          |         | plain    |
         datid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
         datname            | name    |           |          |         | plain    |
         relid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
         phase              | text    |           |          |         | extended |
         heap_blks_total    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
         heap_blks_scanned  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
         heap_blks_vacuumed | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
         index_vacuum_count | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
         max_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
         num_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
         indexes_total      | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column
         indexes_processed  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column


        <<<--- new view --->>>

        postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
              View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
             Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
        ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
         pid            | integer |           |          |
         datid          | oid     |           |          |
         datname        | name    |           |          |
         indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
         leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
         phase          | text    |           |          |
         tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



        On 1/26/22, 8:07 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

            Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

            This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
            index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
            index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

            postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
                        View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
                    Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
            ----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
             pid                  | integer |           |          |
             datid                | oid     |           |          |
             datname              | name    |           |          |
             relid                | oid     |           |          |
             phase                | text    |           |          |
             heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
             heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
             heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
             index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
             max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
             num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
             index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
             index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

            The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

            Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
            Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
            tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

            postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
                  View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
                 Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
            ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
             pid            | integer |           |          |
             datid          | oid     |           |          |
             datname        | name    |           |          |
             indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
             phase          | text    |           |          |
             leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
             tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



            On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

                On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

                    On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
                    > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
                    > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
                    > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
                    > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
                    > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
                    > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
                    > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
                    > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

                 > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
                 > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
                 > But is that really better than having a separate view?

                To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
                Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

                    > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
                    > infer from this value (without a total number)?

                >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
                >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
                >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

                The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

                    Nathan

                    [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-02-21T19:03:39Z

>    The change has been broken up as 3 separate patches.

>    0007-Expose-progress-for-the-vacuuming-indexes-and-cleani.patch - Introduces 2 new columns to pg_stat_progress_vacuum, indexes_total and indexes_processed. These 2 columns will provide progress on the index vacuuming/cleanup.
 >   0001-Expose-the-index-being-processed-in-the-vacuuming-in.patch - Introduces a new view called pg_stat_prgoress_vacuum_index. This view tracks the index being vacuumed/cleaned and the total number of index tuples removed.
 >   0001-Rename-index_vacuum_count-to-index_vacuum_cycle_coun.patch - Renames the existing index_vacuum_count to index_vacuum_cycle_count in pg_stat_progress_vacuum. Due to the other changes, it makes sense to include "cycle" in the column name to be crystal clear that the column refers to the index cycle count.

 >   Thanks

Sending again with patch files renamed to ensure correct apply order.

    On 2/10/22, 1:39 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

        Attached is the latest version of the patch to deal with the changes in the recent commit aa64f23b02924724eafbd9eadbf26d85df30a12b

        On 2/1/22, 2:32 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

            After speaking with Nathan offline, A few changes have been made to the patch.

            As mentioned earlier in the thread, tracking how many indexes are processed in PARALLEL vacuum mode is not very straightforward since only the workers or leader process have ability to inspect the Vacuum shared parallel state. 

            The latest version of the patch introduces a shared memory to track indexes vacuumed/cleaned by each worker ( or leader ) in a PARALLEL vacuum. In order to present this data in the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view, the value of the new column "indexes_processed"  is retrieved from shared memory by pg_stat_get_progress_info. For non-parallel vacuums, the value of "indexes_processed" is retrieved from the backend progress array directly. 

            The patch also includes the changes to implement the new view pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index which exposes the index being vacuumed/cleaned up.

            postgres=# \d+ pg_stat_progress_vacuum ;
                                   View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
                   Column       |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default | Storage  | Description
            --------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------+----------+-------------
             pid                | integer |           |          |         | plain    |
             datid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
             datname            | name    |           |          |         | plain    |
             relid              | oid     |           |          |         | plain    |
             phase              | text    |           |          |         | extended |
             heap_blks_total    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
             heap_blks_scanned  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
             heap_blks_vacuumed | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
             index_vacuum_count | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
             max_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
             num_dead_tuples    | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |
             indexes_total      | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column
             indexes_processed  | bigint  |           |          |         | plain    |                  <<<-- new column


            <<<--- new view --->>>

            postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
                  View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
                 Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
            ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
             pid            | integer |           |          |
             datid          | oid     |           |          |
             datname        | name    |           |          |
             indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
             leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
             phase          | text    |           |          |
             tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



            On 1/26/22, 8:07 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

                Attached is the latest patch and associated documentation.

                This version addresses the index_ordinal_position column confusion. Rather than displaying the index position, the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view now has 2 new column(s):
                index_total - this column will show the total number of indexes to be vacuumed
                index_complete_count - this column will show the total number of indexes processed so far. In order to deal with the parallel vacuums, the parallel_workers ( planned workers ) value had to be exposed and each backends performing an index vacuum/cleanup in parallel had to advertise the number of indexes it vacuumed/cleaned. The # of indexes vacuumed for the parallel cleanup can then be derived the pg_stat_progress_vacuum view. 

                postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum
                            View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum"
                        Column        |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
                ----------------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
                 pid                  | integer |           |          |
                 datid                | oid     |           |          |
                 datname              | name    |           |          |
                 relid                | oid     |           |          |
                 phase                | text    |           |          |
                 heap_blks_total      | bigint  |           |          |
                 heap_blks_scanned    | bigint  |           |          |
                 heap_blks_vacuumed   | bigint  |           |          |
                 index_vacuum_count   | bigint  |           |          |
                 max_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
                 num_dead_tuples      | bigint  |           |          |
                 index_total          | bigint  |           |          |.                           <<<---------------------
                 index_complete_count | numeric |           |          |.           <<<---------------------

                The pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view includes:

                Indexrelid - the currently vacuumed index
                Leader_pid - the pid of the leader process. NULL if the process is the leader or vacuum is not parallel
                tuples_removed - the amount of indexes tuples removed. The user can use this column to see that the index vacuum has movement.

                postgres=# \d pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
                      View "pg_catalog.pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index"
                     Column     |  Type   | Collation | Nullable | Default
                ----------------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
                 pid            | integer |           |          |
                 datid          | oid     |           |          |
                 datname        | name    |           |          |
                 indexrelid     | bigint  |           |          |
                 phase          | text    |           |          |
                 leader_pid     | bigint  |           |          |
                 tuples_removed | bigint  |           |          |



                On 1/12/22, 9:52 PM, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:

                    On 1/12/22, 1:28 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:

                        On 1/11/22, 11:46 PM, "Masahiko Sawada" <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
                        > Regarding the new pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index view, why do we need
                        > to have a separate view? Users will have to check two views. If this
                        > view is expected to be used together with and joined to
                        > pg_stat_progress_vacuum, why don't we provide one view that has full
                        > information from the beginning? Especially, I think it's not useful
                        > that the total number of indexes to vacuum (num_indexes_to_vacuum
                        > column) and the current number of indexes that have been vacuumed
                        > (index_ordinal_position column) are shown in separate views.

                     > I suppose we could add all of the new columns to
                     > pg_stat_progress_vacuum and just set columns to NULL as appropriate.
                     > But is that really better than having a separate view?

                    To add, since a vacuum can utilize parallel worker processes + the main vacuum process to perform index vacuuming, it made sense to separate the backends doing index vacuum/cleanup in a separate view. 
                    Besides what Nathan suggested, the only other clean option I can think of is to perhaps create a json column in pg_stat_progress_vacuum which will include all the new fields. My concern with this approach is that it will make usability, to flatten the json, difficult for users.

                        > Also, I’m not sure how useful index_tuples_removed is; what can we
                        > infer from this value (without a total number)?

                    >    I think the idea was that you can compare it against max_dead_tuples
                    >   and num_dead_tuples to get an estimate of the current cycle progress.
                    >    Otherwise, it just shows that progress is being made.

                    The main purpose is to really show that the "index vacuum" phase is actually making progress. Note that for certain types of indexes, i.e. GIN/GIST the number of tuples_removed will end up exceeding the number of num_dead_tuples.

                        Nathan

                        [0] https://postgr.es/m/7874FB21-FAA5-49BD-8386-2866552656C7%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-02-21T19:09:10Z

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 07:03:39PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> Sending again with patch files renamed to ensure correct apply order.

I haven't had a chance to test this too much, but I did look through the
patch set and have a couple of small comments.

+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       The number of indexes to be processed in the
+       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal> phase
+       of the vacuum.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>
+
+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_processed</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       The number of indexes processed in the
+       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal> phase.
+       At the start of an index vacuum cycle, this value is set to <literal>0</literal>.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>

Will these be set to 0 for failsafe vacuums and vacuums with INDEX_CLEANUP
turned off?

+typedef struct VacWorkerProgressInfo
+{
+    int                     num_vacuums;    /* number of active VACUUMS with parallel workers */
+    int                     max_vacuums;    /* max number of VACUUMS with parallel workers */
+    slock_t         mutex;
+    VacOneWorkerProgressInfo vacuums[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
+} VacWorkerProgressInfo;

max_vacuums appears to just be a local copy of MaxBackends.  Does this
information really need to be stored here?  Also, is there a strong reason
for using a spinlock instead of an LWLock?

+void
+vacuum_worker_end(int leader_pid)
+{
+    SpinLockAcquire(&vacworkerprogress->mutex);
+    for (int i = 0; i < vacworkerprogress->num_vacuums; i++)
+    {
+        VacOneWorkerProgressInfo *vac = &vacworkerprogress->vacuums[i];
+
+        if (vac->leader_pid == leader_pid)
+        {
+            *vac = vacworkerprogress->vacuums[vacworkerprogress->num_vacuums - 1];
+            vacworkerprogress->num_vacuums--;
+            SpinLockRelease(&vacworkerprogress->mutex);
+            break;
+        }
+    }
+    SpinLockRelease(&vacworkerprogress->mutex);
+}

I see this loop pattern in a couple of places, and it makes me wonder if
this information would fit more naturally in a hash table.

+        if (callback)
+            callback(values, 3);

Why does this need to be set up as a callback function?  Could we just call
the function if cmdtype == PROGRESS_COMMAND_VACUUM?  ISTM that is pretty
much all this is doing.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-02-23T18:02:08Z

    +     <row>
    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
    +       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
    +      </para>
    +      <para>
    +       The number of indexes to be processed in the
    +       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal> phase
    +       of the vacuum.
    +      </para></entry>
    +     </row>
    +
    +     <row>
    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
    +       <structfield>indexes_processed</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
    +      </para>
    +      <para>
    +       The number of indexes processed in the
    +       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal> phase.
    +       At the start of an index vacuum cycle, this value is set to <literal>0</literal>.
    +      </para></entry>
    +     </row>

    > Will these be set to 0 for failsafe vacuums and vacuums with INDEX_CLEANUP
    > turned off?

If the failsafe kicks in midway through a vacuum, the number indexes_total will not be reset to 0. If INDEX_CLEANUP is turned off, then the value will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.

    +typedef struct VacWorkerProgressInfo
    +{
    +    int                     num_vacuums;    /* number of active VACUUMS with parallel workers */
    +    int                     max_vacuums;    /* max number of VACUUMS with parallel workers */
    +    slock_t         mutex;
    +    VacOneWorkerProgressInfo vacuums[FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_MEMBER];
    +} VacWorkerProgressInfo;

    > max_vacuums appears to just be a local copy of MaxBackends.  Does this
    > information really need to be stored here?  Also, is there a strong reason
    > for using a spinlock instead of an LWLock?

First, The BTVacInfo code in backend/access/nbtree/nbtutils.c inspired this, so I wanted to follow this pattern. With that said, I do see max_vacuums being redundant here, and I am inclined to replace it with a MaxBackends() call. 

Second, There is no strong reason to use spinlock here except I incorrectly assumed it will be better for this case. After reading more about this and reading up src/backend/storage/lmgr/README, an LWLock will be better.

    +void
    +vacuum_worker_end(int leader_pid)
    +{
    +    SpinLockAcquire(&vacworkerprogress->mutex);
    +    for (int i = 0; i < vacworkerprogress->num_vacuums; i++)
    +    {
    +        VacOneWorkerProgressInfo *vac = &vacworkerprogress->vacuums[i];
    +
    +        if (vac->leader_pid == leader_pid)
    +        {
    +            *vac = vacworkerprogress->vacuums[vacworkerprogress->num_vacuums - 1];
    +            vacworkerprogress->num_vacuums--;
    +            SpinLockRelease(&vacworkerprogress->mutex);
    +            break;
    +        }
    +    }
    +    SpinLockRelease(&vacworkerprogress->mutex);
    +}

  >  I see this loop pattern in a couple of places, and it makes me wonder if
  >  this information would fit more naturally in a hash table.

Followed the pattern in backend/access/nbtree/nbtutils.c for this as well. Using dynahash may make sense here if it simplifies the code. Will look.

    +        if (callback)
    +            callback(values, 3);

  >  Why does this need to be set up as a callback function?  Could we just call
  >  the function if cmdtype == PROGRESS_COMMAND_VACUUM?  ISTM that is pretty
  >  much all this is doing.

The intention will be for the caller to set the callback early on in the function using the existing " if (pg_strcasecmp(cmd, "VACUUM") == 0), etc." statement. This way we avoid having to add another if/else block before tuplestore_putvalues is called.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> — 2022-02-23T18:41:36Z

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:02 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> If the failsafe kicks in midway through a vacuum, the number indexes_total will not be reset to 0. If INDEX_CLEANUP is turned off, then the value will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.

The way that this works with num_index_scans is that we "round up"
when there has been non-zero work in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(), but
not if the precheck in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() fails. That seems
like a good model to generalize from here. Note that this makes
INDEX_CLEANUP=off affect num_index_scans in much the same way as a
VACUUM where the failsafe kicks in very early, during the initial heap
pass. That is, if the failsafe kicks in before we reach lazy_vacuum()
for the first time (which is not unlikely), or even in the
lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() precheck, then num_index_scans will remain
at 0, just like INDEX_CLEANUP=off.

The actual failsafe WARNING shows num_index_scans, possibly before it
gets incremented one last time (by "rounding up"). So it's reasonably
clear how this all works from that context (assuming that the
autovacuum logging stuff, which reports num_index_scans, outputs a
report for a table where the failsafe kicked in).

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-02-25T19:52:53Z

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:41:36AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:02 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>> If the failsafe kicks in midway through a vacuum, the number indexes_total will not be reset to 0. If INDEX_CLEANUP is turned off, then the value will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.
> 
> The way that this works with num_index_scans is that we "round up"
> when there has been non-zero work in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(), but
> not if the precheck in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() fails. That seems
> like a good model to generalize from here. Note that this makes
> INDEX_CLEANUP=off affect num_index_scans in much the same way as a
> VACUUM where the failsafe kicks in very early, during the initial heap
> pass. That is, if the failsafe kicks in before we reach lazy_vacuum()
> for the first time (which is not unlikely), or even in the
> lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() precheck, then num_index_scans will remain
> at 0, just like INDEX_CLEANUP=off.
> 
> The actual failsafe WARNING shows num_index_scans, possibly before it
> gets incremented one last time (by "rounding up"). So it's reasonably
> clear how this all works from that context (assuming that the
> autovacuum logging stuff, which reports num_index_scans, outputs a
> report for a table where the failsafe kicked in).

I am confused.  If failsafe kicks in during the middle of a vacuum, I
(perhaps naively) would expect indexes_total and indexes_processed to go to
zero, and I'd expect to no longer see the "vacuuming indexes" and "cleaning
up indexes" phases.  Otherwise, how would I know that we are now skipping
indexes?  Of course, you won't have any historical context about the index
work done before failsafe kicked in, but IMO it is misleading to still
include it in the progress view.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-02-27T17:16:53Z

    > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:02 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
    >> If the failsafe kicks in midway through a vacuum, the number indexes_total will not be reset to 0. If INDEX_CLEANUP is turned off, then the value will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.
    >
    > The way that this works with num_index_scans is that we "round up"
    > when there has been non-zero work in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(), but
    > not if the precheck in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() fails. That seems
    > like a good model to generalize from here. Note that this makes
    > INDEX_CLEANUP=off affect num_index_scans in much the same way as a
    > VACUUM where the failsafe kicks in very early, during the initial heap
    > pass. That is, if the failsafe kicks in before we reach lazy_vacuum()
    > for the first time (which is not unlikely), or even in the
    > lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() precheck, then num_index_scans will remain
    > at 0, just like INDEX_CLEANUP=off.
    >
    > The actual failsafe WARNING shows num_index_scans, possibly before it
    > gets incremented one last time (by "rounding up"). So it's reasonably
    > clear how this all works from that context (assuming that the
    > autovacuum logging stuff, which reports num_index_scans, outputs a
    > report for a table where the failsafe kicked in).

>    I am confused.  If failsafe kicks in during the middle of a vacuum, I
>    (perhaps naively) would expect indexes_total and indexes_processed to go to
>    zero, and I'd expect to no longer see the "vacuuming indexes" and "cleaning
>    up indexes" phases.  Otherwise, how would I know that we are now skipping
>    indexes?  Of course, you won't have any historical context about the index
>    work done before failsafe kicked in, but IMO it is misleading to still
>    include it in the progress view.

Failsafe occurring in the middle of a vacuum and resetting "indexes_total" to 0 will be misleading. I am thinking that it is a better idea to expose only one column "indexes_remaining".

If index_cleanup is set to OFF, the values of indexes_remaining will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.
If failsafe kicks in during a vacuum in-progress, "indexes_remaining" will be calculated to 0.

This approach will provide a progress based on how many indexes remaining with no ambiguity.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-03T05:08:43Z

>    >> If the failsafe kicks in midway through a vacuum, the number indexes_total will not be reset to 0. If INDEX_CLEANUP is turned off, then the value will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.
>    >
>    > The way that this works with num_index_scans is that we "round up"
>    > when there has been non-zero work in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(), but
>    > not if the precheck in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() fails. That seems
>    > like a good model to generalize from here. Note that this makes
>    > INDEX_CLEANUP=off affect num_index_scans in much the same way as a
>    > VACUUM where the failsafe kicks in very early, during the initial heap
>    > pass. That is, if the failsafe kicks in before we reach lazy_vacuum()
>    > for the first time (which is not unlikely), or even in the
>    > lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() precheck, then num_index_scans will remain
>    > at 0, just like INDEX_CLEANUP=off.
>    >
>    > The actual failsafe WARNING shows num_index_scans, possibly before it
>    > gets incremented one last time (by "rounding up"). So it's reasonably
>    > clear how this all works from that context (assuming that the
>    > autovacuum logging stuff, which reports num_index_scans, outputs a
>    > report for a table where the failsafe kicked in).

>    I am confused.  If failsafe kicks in during the middle of a vacuum, I
>   (perhaps naively) would expect indexes_total and indexes_processed to go to
>    zero, and I'd expect to no longer see the "vacuuming indexes" and "cleaning
>   up indexes" phases.  Otherwise, how would I know that we are now skipping
>  indexes?  Of course, you won't have any historical context about the index
>  work done before failsafe kicked in, but IMO it is misleading to still
>   include it in the progress view.

After speaking with Nathan offline, the best forward is to reset indexes_total and indexes_processed to 0 after the start of "vacuuming indexes" or "cleaning up indexes" phase. 
Also, if failsafe is triggered midway through a vacuum, the values for both indexes_total and indexes_processed is (re)set to 0.

Revision of the patch is attached.

Below is a test that shows the output.

-[ RECORD 1 ]------+------------------
pid                | 4360
datid              | 5
datname            | postgres
relid              | 16399
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 401092
heap_blks_scanned  | 211798
heap_blks_vacuumed | 158847
index_vacuum_count | 3
max_dead_tuples    | 1747625
num_dead_tuples    | 1747366
indexes_total      | 8				<<<<--- index_vacuum_count  is 3, indexes_total is 8  and indexes_processed so far is 1
indexes_processed  | 1


-[ RECORD 1 ]------+--------------
pid                | 4360
datid              | 5
datname            | postgres
relid              | 16399
phase              | scanning heap
heap_blks_total    | 401092
heap_blks_scanned  | 234590
heap_blks_vacuumed | 211797
index_vacuum_count | 4
max_dead_tuples    | 1747625
num_dead_tuples    | 752136
indexes_total      | 0				<<<<--- index_vacuum_count  is 4 and not in an index phase. indexes_total is 0  and indexes_processed so far is 0
indexes_processed  | 0


-[ RECORD 1 ]------+------------------
pid                | 4360
datid              | 5
datname            | postgres
relid              | 16399
phase              | vacuuming indexes
heap_blks_total    | 401092
heap_blks_scanned  | 264748
heap_blks_vacuumed | 211797
index_vacuum_count | 4
max_dead_tuples    | 1747625
num_dead_tuples    | 1747350
indexes_total      | 8
indexes_processed  | 6		                    <<<<--- index_vacuum_count  is 4, indexes_total is 8  and indexes_processed so far is 6


--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-08T06:04:22Z

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:08 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    >> If the failsafe kicks in midway through a vacuum, the number indexes_total will not be reset to 0. If INDEX_CLEANUP is turned off, then the value will be 0 at the start of the vacuum.
> >    >
> >    > The way that this works with num_index_scans is that we "round up"
> >    > when there has been non-zero work in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes(), but
> >    > not if the precheck in lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() fails. That seems
> >    > like a good model to generalize from here. Note that this makes
> >    > INDEX_CLEANUP=off affect num_index_scans in much the same way as a
> >    > VACUUM where the failsafe kicks in very early, during the initial heap
> >    > pass. That is, if the failsafe kicks in before we reach lazy_vacuum()
> >    > for the first time (which is not unlikely), or even in the
> >    > lazy_vacuum_all_indexes() precheck, then num_index_scans will remain
> >    > at 0, just like INDEX_CLEANUP=off.
> >    >
> >    > The actual failsafe WARNING shows num_index_scans, possibly before it
> >    > gets incremented one last time (by "rounding up"). So it's reasonably
> >    > clear how this all works from that context (assuming that the
> >    > autovacuum logging stuff, which reports num_index_scans, outputs a
> >    > report for a table where the failsafe kicked in).
>
> >    I am confused.  If failsafe kicks in during the middle of a vacuum, I
> >   (perhaps naively) would expect indexes_total and indexes_processed to go to
> >    zero, and I'd expect to no longer see the "vacuuming indexes" and "cleaning
> >   up indexes" phases.  Otherwise, how would I know that we are now skipping
> >  indexes?  Of course, you won't have any historical context about the index
> >  work done before failsafe kicked in, but IMO it is misleading to still
> >   include it in the progress view.
>
> After speaking with Nathan offline, the best forward is to reset indexes_total and indexes_processed to 0 after the start of "vacuuming indexes" or "cleaning up indexes" phase.

+1

+/*
+ * vacuum_worker_init --- initialize this module's shared memory hash
+ * to track the progress of a vacuum worker
+ */
+void
+vacuum_worker_init(void)
+{
+       HASHCTL     info;
+       long        max_table_size = GetMaxBackends();
+
+       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = NULL;
+
+       info.keysize = sizeof(pid_t);
+       info.entrysize = sizeof(VacProgressEntry);
+
+       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = ShmemInitHash("Vacuum Progress Hash",
+
                  max_table_size,
+
                  max_table_size,
+
                  &info,
+
                  HASH_ELEM | HASH_BLOBS);
+}

It seems to me that creating a shmem hash with max_table_size entries
for parallel vacuum process tracking is too much. IIRC an old patch
had parallel vacuum workers advertise its progress and changed the
pg_stat_progress_vacuum view so that it aggregates the results
including workers' stats. I think it’s better than the current one.
Why did you change that?

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-08T15:41:47Z

+    +/*
+    + * vacuum_worker_init --- initialize this module's shared memory hash
+    + * to track the progress of a vacuum worker
+    + */
+    +void
+    +vacuum_worker_init(void)
+    +{
+    +       HASHCTL     info;
+    +       long        max_table_size = GetMaxBackends();
+    +
+    +       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = NULL;
+    +
+    +       info.keysize = sizeof(pid_t);
+    +       info.entrysize = sizeof(VacProgressEntry);
+    +
+    +       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = ShmemInitHash("Vacuum Progress Hash",
+    +
+                      max_table_size,
+    +
+                      max_table_size,
+    +
+                      &info,
+    +
+                      HASH_ELEM | HASH_BLOBS);
+    +}

+    It seems to me that creating a shmem hash with max_table_size entries
+    for parallel vacuum process tracking is too much. IIRC an old patch
+    had parallel vacuum workers advertise its progress and changed the
+    pg_stat_progress_vacuum view so that it aggregates the results
+    including workers' stats. I think it’s better than the current one.
+    Why did you change that?

+    Regards,

I was trying to avoid a shared memory to track completed indexes, but aggregating stats does not work with parallel vacuums. This is because a parallel worker will exit before the vacuum completes causing the aggregated total to be wrong. 

For example

Leader_pid advertises it completed 2 indexes
Parallel worker advertises it completed 2 indexes

When aggregating we see 4 indexes completed.

After the parallel worker exits, the aggregation will show only 2 indexes completed. 

 --
 Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-09T01:53:44Z

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:41 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> +    +/*
> +    + * vacuum_worker_init --- initialize this module's shared memory hash
> +    + * to track the progress of a vacuum worker
> +    + */
> +    +void
> +    +vacuum_worker_init(void)
> +    +{
> +    +       HASHCTL     info;
> +    +       long        max_table_size = GetMaxBackends();
> +    +
> +    +       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = NULL;
> +    +
> +    +       info.keysize = sizeof(pid_t);
> +    +       info.entrysize = sizeof(VacProgressEntry);
> +    +
> +    +       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = ShmemInitHash("Vacuum Progress Hash",
> +    +
> +                      max_table_size,
> +    +
> +                      max_table_size,
> +    +
> +                      &info,
> +    +
> +                      HASH_ELEM | HASH_BLOBS);
> +    +}
>
> +    It seems to me that creating a shmem hash with max_table_size entries
> +    for parallel vacuum process tracking is too much. IIRC an old patch
> +    had parallel vacuum workers advertise its progress and changed the
> +    pg_stat_progress_vacuum view so that it aggregates the results
> +    including workers' stats. I think it’s better than the current one.
> +    Why did you change that?
>
> +    Regards,
>
> I was trying to avoid a shared memory to track completed indexes, but aggregating stats does not work with parallel vacuums. This is because a parallel worker will exit before the vacuum completes causing the aggregated total to be wrong.
>
> For example
>
> Leader_pid advertises it completed 2 indexes
> Parallel worker advertises it completed 2 indexes
>
> When aggregating we see 4 indexes completed.
>
> After the parallel worker exits, the aggregation will show only 2 indexes completed.

Indeed.

It might have already been discussed but other than using a new shmem
hash for parallel vacuum, I wonder if we can allow workers to change
the leader’s progress information. It would break the assumption that
the backend status entry is modified by its own backend, though. But
it might help for progress updates of other parallel operations too.
This essentially does the same thing as what the current patch does
but it doesn't require a new shmem hash.

Another idea I come up with is that the parallel vacuum leader checks
PVIndStats.status and updates how many indexes are processed to its
progress information. The leader can check it and update the progress
information before and after index vacuuming. And possibly we can add
a callback to the main loop of index AM's bulkdelete and vacuumcleanup
so that the leader can periodically make it up-to-date.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-09T02:35:31Z

>    Indeed.

>    It might have already been discussed but other than using a new shmem
>    hash for parallel vacuum, I wonder if we can allow workers to change
>    the leader’s progress information. It would break the assumption that
>    the backend status entry is modified by its own backend, though. But
>    it might help for progress updates of other parallel operations too.
>    This essentially does the same thing as what the current patch does
>    but it doesn't require a new shmem hash.

I experimented with this idea, but it did not work. The idea would have been to create a pgstat_progress_update function that takes the leader pid, however infrastructure does not exist to allow one backend to manipulate another backends backend status array.
pgstat_fetch_stat_beentry returns a local copy only. 

>    Another idea I come up with is that the parallel vacuum leader checks
>    PVIndStats.status and updates how many indexes are processed to its
>    progress information. The leader can check it and update the progress
>    information before and after index vacuuming. And possibly we can add
>    a callback to the main loop of index AM's bulkdelete and vacuumcleanup
>    so that the leader can periodically make it up-to-date.

>    Regards,

The PVIndStats idea is also one I experimented with but it did not work. The reason being the backend checking the progress needs to do a shm_toc_lookup to access the data, but they are not prepared to do so. 

I have not considered the callback in the index AM's bulkdelete and vacuumcleanup, but I can imagine this is not possible since a leader could be busy vacuuming rather than updating counters, but I may be misunderstanding the suggestion.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-09T02:57:02Z

Attached is the latest revision of the patch(s). Renamed the patches correctly for Cfbot.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-09T03:15:26Z

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:35 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    Indeed.
>
> >    It might have already been discussed but other than using a new shmem
> >    hash for parallel vacuum, I wonder if we can allow workers to change
> >    the leader’s progress information. It would break the assumption that
> >    the backend status entry is modified by its own backend, though. But
> >    it might help for progress updates of other parallel operations too.
> >    This essentially does the same thing as what the current patch does
> >    but it doesn't require a new shmem hash.
>
> I experimented with this idea, but it did not work. The idea would have been to create a pgstat_progress_update function that takes the leader pid, however infrastructure does not exist to allow one backend to manipulate another backends backend status array.
> pgstat_fetch_stat_beentry returns a local copy only.

I think if it's a better approach we can do that including adding a
new infrastructure for it.

>
> >    Another idea I come up with is that the parallel vacuum leader checks
> >    PVIndStats.status and updates how many indexes are processed to its
> >    progress information. The leader can check it and update the progress
> >    information before and after index vacuuming. And possibly we can add
> >    a callback to the main loop of index AM's bulkdelete and vacuumcleanup
> >    so that the leader can periodically make it up-to-date.
>
> >    Regards,
>
> The PVIndStats idea is also one I experimented with but it did not work. The reason being the backend checking the progress needs to do a shm_toc_lookup to access the data, but they are not prepared to do so.

What I imagined is that the leader checks how many PVIndStats.status
is PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED and updates the result to its
progress information as indexes_processed. That way, the backend
checking the progress can see it.

>
> I have not considered the callback in the index AM's bulkdelete and vacuumcleanup, but I can imagine this is not possible since a leader could be busy vacuuming rather than updating counters, but I may be misunderstanding the suggestion.

Checking PVIndStats.status values is cheap. Probably the leader can
check it every 1GB index block, for example.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-09T22:52:26Z

>    I think if it's a better approach we can do that including adding a
>    new infrastructure for it.

+1 This is a beneficial idea, especially to other progress reporting, but I see this as a separate thread targeting the next major version.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-03-10T00:52:37Z

I took a look at the latest patch set.

+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       The number of indexes to be processed in the 
+       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal> 
+       or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal> phase. It is set to
+       <literal>0</literal> when vacuum is not in any of these phases.
+      </para></entry>

Could we avoid resetting it to 0 unless INDEX_CLEANUP was turned off or
failsafe kicked in?  It might be nice to know how many indexes the vacuum
intends to process.  I don't feel too strongly about this, so if it would
add a lot of complexity, it might be okay as is.

 	BTreeShmemInit();
 	SyncScanShmemInit();
 	AsyncShmemInit();
+	vacuum_worker_init();

Don't we also need to add the size of the hash table to
CalculateShmemSize()?

+ * A command type can optionally define a callback function
+ * which will derive Datum values rather than use values
+ * directly from the backends progress array.

I think this can be removed.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-10T01:22:37Z

>    I took a look at the latest patch set.

>    +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
>    +       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
>    +      </para>
>    +      <para>
>    +       The number of indexes to be processed in the
>    +       <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal>
>    +       or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal> phase. It is set to
>    +       <literal>0</literal> when vacuum is not in any of these phases.
>    +      </para></entry>

>    Could we avoid resetting it to 0 unless INDEX_CLEANUP was turned off or
>    failsafe kicked in?  It might be nice to know how many indexes the vacuum
>    intends to process.  I don't feel too strongly about this, so if it would
>    add a lot of complexity, it might be okay as is.

Your suggestion is valid. On INDEX_CLEANUP it is set to 0 from the start and when failsafe kicks in it will be reset to 0. I Will remove the reset call for the common index vacuum path. 

 >           BTreeShmemInit();
 >           SyncScanShmemInit();
 >           AsyncShmemInit();
 >   +       vacuum_worker_init();

 >   Don't we also need to add the size of the hash table to
 >   CalculateShmemSize()?

No, ShmemInitHash takes the min and max size of the hash and in turn calls ShmemInitStruct to setup the shared memory.

>    + * A command type can optionally define a callback function
>    + * which will derive Datum values rather than use values
>    + * directly from the backends progress array.

>    I think this can be removed.

Good catch.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-10T01:37:58Z

>     >           BTreeShmemInit();
>     >           SyncScanShmemInit();
>     >           AsyncShmemInit();
>     >   +       vacuum_worker_init();

>     >   Don't we also need to add the size of the hash table to
>     >   CalculateShmemSize()?

> No, ShmemInitHash takes the min and max size of the hash and in turn calls ShmemInitStruct to setup the shared memory.

Sorry,  I am wrong here. The size needs to be accounted for at startup. 

 --
 Sami Imseih
 Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-10T21:30:57Z

Attached v4 which includes accounting for the hash size on startup, removal of the no longer needed comment in pgstatfuncs.c and a change in both code/docs to only reset the indexes_total to 0 when failsafe is triggered.
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-03-10T22:36:55Z

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:30:57PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> Attached v4 which includes accounting for the hash size on startup, removal of the no longer needed comment in pgstatfuncs.c and a change in both code/docs to only reset the indexes_total to 0 when failsafe is triggered.

Thanks for the new patch set.

+/*
+ * Structs for tracking shared Progress information
+ * amongst worker ( and leader ) processes of a vacuum.
+ */

nitpick: Can we remove the extra spaces in the parentheses?

+    if (entry != NULL)
+        values[PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_COMMON + PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_COMPLETED] = entry->indexes_processed;

What does it mean if there isn't an entry in the map?  Is this actually
expected, or should we ERROR instead?

+    /* vacuum worker progress hash table */
+    max_table_size = GetMaxBackends();
+    size = add_size(size, hash_estimate_size(max_table_size,
+                                             sizeof(VacProgressEntry)));

I think the number of entries should be shared between
VacuumWorkerProgressShmemInit() and VacuumWorkerProgressShmemSize().
Otherwise, we might update one and not the other.

+        /* Call the command specific function to override datum values */
+        if (pg_strcasecmp(cmd, "VACUUM") == 0)
+            set_vaccum_worker_progress(values);

I think we should elaborate a bit more in this comment.  It's difficult to
follow what this is doing without referencing the comment above
set_vacuum_worker_progress().

IMO the patches are in decent shape, and this should likely be marked as
ready-for-committer in the near future.  Before doing so, I think we should
check that Sawada-san is okay with moving the deeper infrastructure changes
to a separate threaḋ.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-12T07:00:06Z

> nitpick: Can we remove the extra spaces in the parentheses?

fixed

> What does it mean if there isn't an entry in the map?  Is this actually
> expected, or should we ERROR instead?

I cleaned up the code here and added comments. 

> I think the number of entries should be shared between
> VacuumWorkerProgressShmemInit() and VacuumWorkerProgressShmemSize().
> Otherwise, we might update one and not the other.

Fixed

> I think we should elaborate a bit more in this comment.  It's difficult to
> follow what this is doing without referencing the comment above
> set_vacuum_worker_progress().

More comments added

I also simplified the 0002 patch as well.

-- 
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-03-12T21:20:04Z

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 07:00:06AM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> nitpick: Can we remove the extra spaces in the parentheses?
> 
> fixed
> 
>> What does it mean if there isn't an entry in the map?  Is this actually
>> expected, or should we ERROR instead?
> 
> I cleaned up the code here and added comments. 
> 
>> I think the number of entries should be shared between
>> VacuumWorkerProgressShmemInit() and VacuumWorkerProgressShmemSize().
>> Otherwise, we might update one and not the other.
> 
> Fixed
> 
>> I think we should elaborate a bit more in this comment.  It's difficult to
>> follow what this is doing without referencing the comment above
>> set_vacuum_worker_progress().
> 
> More comments added
> 
> I also simplified the 0002 patch as well.

These patches look pretty good to me.  Barring additional feedback, I
intend to mark this as ready-for-committer early next week.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-14T01:44:32Z

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 4:00 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> > nitpick: Can we remove the extra spaces in the parentheses?
>
> fixed
>
> > What does it mean if there isn't an entry in the map?  Is this actually
> > expected, or should we ERROR instead?
>
> I cleaned up the code here and added comments.
>
> > I think the number of entries should be shared between
> > VacuumWorkerProgressShmemInit() and VacuumWorkerProgressShmemSize().
> > Otherwise, we might update one and not the other.
>
> Fixed
>
> > I think we should elaborate a bit more in this comment.  It's difficult to
> > follow what this is doing without referencing the comment above
> > set_vacuum_worker_progress().
>
> More comments added
>
> I also simplified the 0002 patch as well.

I'm still unsure the current design of 0001 patch is better than other
approaches we’ve discussed. Even users who don't use parallel vacuum
are forced to allocate shared memory for index vacuum progress, with
GetMaxBackends() entries from the beginning. Also, it’s likely to
extend the progress tracking feature for other parallel operations in
the future but I think the current design is not extensible. If we
want to do that, we will end up creating similar things for each of
them or re-creating index vacuum progress tracking feature while
creating a common infra. It might not be a problem as of now but I'm
concerned that introducing a feature that is not extensible and forces
users to allocate additional shmem might be a blocker in the future.
Looking at the precedent example, When we introduce the progress
tracking feature, we implemented it in an extensible way. On the other
hand, others in this thread seem to agree with this approach, so I'd
like to leave it to committers.

Anyway, here are some comments on v5-0001 patch:

+/* in commands/vacuumparallel.c */
+extern void VacuumWorkerProgressShmemInit(void);
+extern Size VacuumWorkerProgressShmemSize(void);
+extern void vacuum_worker_end(int leader_pid);
+extern void vacuum_worker_update(int leader_pid);
+extern void vacuum_worker_end_callback(int code, Datum arg);
+extern void set_vaccum_worker_progress(Datum *values);

These functions' body is not in vacuumparallel.c. As the comment says,
I think these functions should be implemented in vacuumparallel.c.

---
+/*
+ * set_vaccum_worker_progress --- updates the number of indexes that have been
+ * vacuumed or cleaned up in a parallel vacuum.
+ */
+void
+set_vaccum_worker_progress(Datum *values)

s/vaccum/vacuum/

---
+void
+set_vaccum_worker_progress(Datum *values)
+{
+        VacProgressEntry *entry;
+        int leader_pid = values[0];

I thik we should use DatumGetInt32().

---
+        entry = (VacProgressEntry *)
hash_search(VacuumWorkerProgressHash, &leader_pid, HASH_ENTER_NULL,
&found);
+
+        if (!entry)
+                elog(ERROR, "cannot allocate shared memory for vacuum
worker progress");

Since we raise an error in case of out of memory, I think we can use
HASH_ENTER instead of HASH_ENTER_NULL. Or do we want to emit a
detailed error message here?

---
+       VacuumWorkerProgressHash = NULL;

This line is not necessary.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-14T16:20:51Z

>    I'm still unsure the current design of 0001 patch is better than other
>    approaches we’ve discussed. Even users who don't use parallel vacuum
>    are forced to allocate shared memory for index vacuum progress, with
>    GetMaxBackends() entries from the beginning. Also, it’s likely to
>    extend the progress tracking feature for other parallel operations in
>    the future but I think the current design is not extensible. If we
>    want to do that, we will end up creating similar things for each of
>    them or re-creating index vacuum progress tracking feature while
>    creating a common infra. It might not be a problem as of now but I'm
>    concerned that introducing a feature that is not extensible and forces
>    users to allocate additional shmem might be a blocker in the future.
>    Looking at the precedent example, When we introduce the progress
>    tracking feature, we implemented it in an extensible way. On the other
>    hand, others in this thread seem to agree with this approach, so I'd
>    like to leave it to committers.

Thanks for the review!

I think you make strong arguments as to why we need to take a different approach now than later. 

Flaws with current patch set:

1. GetMaxBackends() is a really heavy-handed overallocation of a shared memory serving a very specific purpose.
2. Going with the approach of a vacuum specific hash breaks the design of progress which is meant to be extensible.
3. Even if we go with this current approach as an interim solution, it will be a real pain in the future.

With that said, v7 introduces the new infrastructure. 0001 includes the new infrastructure and 0002 takes advantage of this.

This approach is the following:

1. Introduces a new API called pgstat_progress_update_param_parallel along with some others support functions. This new infrastructure is in backend_progress.c

2. There is still a shared memory involved, but the size is capped to " max_worker_processes" which is the max to how many parallel workers can be doing work at any given time. The shared memory hash includes a st_progress_param array just like the Backend Status array.

typedef struct ProgressParallelEntry
{
    pid_t   leader_pid;
    int64   st_progress_param[PGSTAT_NUM_PROGRESS_PARAM];
} ProgressParallelEntry;

3. The progress update function is "pgstat_progress_update_param_parallel" and will aggregate totals reported for a specific progress parameter

For example , it can be called lie below. In the case below, PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_COMPLETED is incremented by 1 in the shared memory entry shared by the workers and leader.

case PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_NEED_BULKDELETE:
                        istat_res = vac_bulkdel_one_index(&ivinfo, istat, pvs->dead_items);
                        pgstat_progress_update_param_parallel(pvs->shared->leader_pid, PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_COMPLETED, 1); <<-----
                        break;

4. pg_stat_get_progress_info will call a function called pgstat_progress_set_parallel which will set the parameter value to the total from the shared memory hash.

I believe this approach gives proper infrastructure for future use-cases of workers reporting progress -and- does not do the heavy-handed shared memory allocation.

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-14T22:21:50Z

Attaching a v8 due to naming convention fixes and one slight change in where index_processed is set after all indexes are vacuumed.

s/indexes_completed/indexes_processed/

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-16T21:47:49Z
```
Spoke to Nathan offline and fixed some more comments/nitpicks in the patch.
```

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-03-16T23:33:13Z

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:47:49PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> Spoke to Nathan offline and fixed some more comments/nitpicks in the patch.

I don't have any substantial comments for v9, so I think this can be marked
as ready-for-committer.  However, we probably should first see whether
Sawada-san has any comments on the revised approach.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-22T03:19:27Z

Sorry for the late reply.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 1:20 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    I'm still unsure the current design of 0001 patch is better than other
> >    approaches we’ve discussed. Even users who don't use parallel vacuum
> >    are forced to allocate shared memory for index vacuum progress, with
> >    GetMaxBackends() entries from the beginning. Also, it’s likely to
> >    extend the progress tracking feature for other parallel operations in
> >    the future but I think the current design is not extensible. If we
> >    want to do that, we will end up creating similar things for each of
> >    them or re-creating index vacuum progress tracking feature while
> >    creating a common infra. It might not be a problem as of now but I'm
> >    concerned that introducing a feature that is not extensible and forces
> >    users to allocate additional shmem might be a blocker in the future.
> >    Looking at the precedent example, When we introduce the progress
> >    tracking feature, we implemented it in an extensible way. On the other
> >    hand, others in this thread seem to agree with this approach, so I'd
> >    like to leave it to committers.
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> I think you make strong arguments as to why we need to take a different approach now than later.
>
> Flaws with current patch set:
>
> 1. GetMaxBackends() is a really heavy-handed overallocation of a shared memory serving a very specific purpose.
> 2. Going with the approach of a vacuum specific hash breaks the design of progress which is meant to be extensible.
> 3. Even if we go with this current approach as an interim solution, it will be a real pain in the future.
>
> With that said, v7 introduces the new infrastructure. 0001 includes the new infrastructure and 0002 takes advantage of this.
>
> This approach is the following:
>
> 1. Introduces a new API called pgstat_progress_update_param_parallel along with some others support functions. This new infrastructure is in backend_progress.c
>
> 2. There is still a shared memory involved, but the size is capped to " max_worker_processes" which is the max to how many parallel workers can be doing work at any given time. The shared memory hash includes a st_progress_param array just like the Backend Status array.

I think that there is a corner case where a parallel operation could
not perform due to the lack of a free shared hash entry, because there
is a window between a parallel worker exiting and the leader
deallocating the hash table entry.

BTW have we discussed another idea I mentioned before that we have the
leader process periodically check the number of completed indexes and
advertise it in its progress information? I'm not sure which one is
better but this idea would require only changes of vacuum code and
probably simpler than the current idea.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2022-03-22T03:28:47Z

Hi,

On 2022-03-16 21:47:49 +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> From 85c47dfb3bb72f764b9052e74a7282c19ebd9898 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Sami Imseih (AWS)" <simseih@amazon.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:39:52 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Add infrastructure for parallel progress reporting
> 
> Infrastructure to allow a parallel worker to report
> progress. In a PARALLEL command, the workers and
> leader can report progress using a new pgstat_progress
> API.

What happens if we run out of memory for hashtable entries?


> +void
> +pgstat_progress_update_param_parallel(int leader_pid, int index, int64 val)
> +{
> +	ProgressParallelEntry *entry;
> +	bool found;
> +
> +	LWLockAcquire(ProgressParallelLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
> +
> +	entry = (ProgressParallelEntry *) hash_search(ProgressParallelHash, &leader_pid, HASH_ENTER, &found);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If the entry is not found, set the value for the index'th member,
> +	 * else increment the current value of the index'th member.
> +	 */
> +	if (!found)
> +		entry->st_progress_param[index] = val;
> +	else
> +		entry->st_progress_param[index] += val;
> +
> +	LWLockRelease(ProgressParallelLock);
> +}

I think that's an absolute no-go. Adding locking to progress reporting,
particularly a single central lwlock, is going to *vastly* increase the
overhead incurred by progress reporting.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-22T07:27:32Z

>    BTW have we discussed another idea I mentioned before that we have the
>    leader process periodically check the number of completed indexes and
>    advertise it in its progress information? I'm not sure which one is
>    better but this idea would require only changes of vacuum code and
>    probably simpler than the current idea.

>    Regards,


If I understand correctly,  to accomplish this we will need to have the leader 
check the number of indexes completed In the ambukdelete or amvacuumcleanup 
callbacks. These routines do not know about  PVIndStats, and they are called 
by both parallel and non-parallel vacuums.

From what I can see, PVIndstats will need to be passed down to these routines 
or pass a NULL for non-parallel vacuums.

Sami

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-22T07:48:53Z

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:27 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    BTW have we discussed another idea I mentioned before that we have the
> >    leader process periodically check the number of completed indexes and
> >    advertise it in its progress information? I'm not sure which one is
> >    better but this idea would require only changes of vacuum code and
> >    probably simpler than the current idea.
>
> >    Regards,
>
>
> If I understand correctly,  to accomplish this we will need to have the leader
> check the number of indexes completed In the ambukdelete or amvacuumcleanup
> callbacks. These routines do not know about  PVIndStats, and they are called
> by both parallel and non-parallel vacuums.
>
> From what I can see, PVIndstats will need to be passed down to these routines
> or pass a NULL for non-parallel vacuums.
>

Can the leader pass a callback that checks PVIndStats to ambulkdelete
an amvacuumcleanup callbacks? I think that in the passed callback, the
leader checks if the number of processed indexes and updates its
progress information if the current progress needs to be updated.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-22T21:57:03Z

>    Can the leader pass a callback that checks PVIndStats to ambulkdelete
>    an amvacuumcleanup callbacks? I think that in the passed callback, the
>    leader checks if the number of processed indexes and updates its
>    progress information if the current progress needs to be updated.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I looked at this option a but today and found that passing the callback 
will also require signature changes to the ambulkdelete and 
amvacuumcleanup routines. 

This will also require us to check after x pages have been 
scanned inside vacuumscan and vacuumcleanup. After x pages
the callback can then update the leaders progress.
I am not sure if adding additional complexity to the scan/cleanup path
 is justified for what this patch is attempting to do. 

There will also be a lag of the leader updating the progress as it
must scan x amount of pages before updating. Obviously, the more
Pages to the scan, the longer the lag will be.

Would like to hear your thoughts on the above.

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-03-25T14:54:25Z

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:57 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    Can the leader pass a callback that checks PVIndStats to ambulkdelete
> >    an amvacuumcleanup callbacks? I think that in the passed callback, the
> >    leader checks if the number of processed indexes and updates its
> >    progress information if the current progress needs to be updated.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> I looked at this option a but today and found that passing the callback
> will also require signature changes to the ambulkdelete and
> amvacuumcleanup routines.

I think it would not be a critical problem since it's a new feature.

>
> This will also require us to check after x pages have been
> scanned inside vacuumscan and vacuumcleanup. After x pages
> the callback can then update the leaders progress.
> I am not sure if adding additional complexity to the scan/cleanup path
>  is justified for what this patch is attempting to do.
>
> There will also be a lag of the leader updating the progress as it
> must scan x amount of pages before updating. Obviously, the more
> Pages to the scan, the longer the lag will be.

Fair points.

On the other hand, the approach of the current patch requires more
memory for progress tracking, which could fail, e.g., due to running
out of hashtable entries. I think that it would be worse that the
parallel operation failed to start due to not being able to track the
progress than the above concerns you mentioned such as introducing
additional complexity and a possible lag of progress updates. So if we
go with the current approach, I think we need to make sure enough (and
not too many) hash table entries.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-29T12:08:45Z

Sorry for the late reply.

> additional complexity and a possible lag of progress updates. So if we
> go with the current approach, I think we need to make sure enough (and
> not too many) hash table entries.

The hash table can be set 4 times the size of 
max_worker_processes which should give more than
enough padding.
Note that max_parallel_maintenance_workers
is what should be used, but since it's dynamic, it cannot
be used to determine the size of shared memory.

Regards,

---
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-03-29T12:25:52Z

> I think that's an absolute no-go. Adding locking to progress reporting,
> particularly a single central lwlock, is going to *vastly* increase the
> overhead incurred by progress reporting.

Sorry for the late reply.

The usage of the shared memory will be limited
to PARALLEL maintenance operations. For now,
it will only be populated for parallel vacuums. 
Autovacuum for example will not be required to 
populate this shared memory.

Regards,

---
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2022-04-03T16:50:02Z

Hi,

On 2022-03-29 12:25:52 +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> > I think that's an absolute no-go. Adding locking to progress reporting,
> > particularly a single central lwlock, is going to *vastly* increase the
> > overhead incurred by progress reporting.
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> The usage of the shared memory will be limited
> to PARALLEL maintenance operations. For now,
> it will only be populated for parallel vacuums. 
> Autovacuum for example will not be required to 
> populate this shared memory.

I nevertheless think that's not acceptable. The whole premise of the progress
reporting infrastructure is to be low overhead. It's OK to require locking to
initialize parallel progress reporting, it's definitely not ok to require
locking to report progress.

Leaving the locking aside, doing a hashtable lookup for each progress report
is pretty expensive.

Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate workers
with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress fields
to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the leader and workers
progress fields can be combined to show the overall progress?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-04-05T16:42:28Z

>    I nevertheless think that's not acceptable. The whole premise of the progress
>    reporting infrastructure is to be low overhead. It's OK to require locking to
>    initialize parallel progress reporting, it's definitely not ok to require
>    locking to report progress.

Fair point.

>    Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate workers
>    with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress fields
>    to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the leader and workers
>    progress fields can be combined to show the overall progress?

The original intent was this, however the workers 
can exit before the command completes and the 
worker progress data will be lost.
This is why the shared memory was introduced. 
This allows the worker progress to persist for the duration 
of the command.

Regards, 

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2022-04-05T17:19:04Z

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:42 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> >    Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate workers
> >    with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress fields
> >    to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the leader and workers
> >    progress fields can be combined to show the overall progress?
>
> The original intent was this, however the workers
> can exit before the command completes and the
> worker progress data will be lost.
> This is why the shared memory was introduced.
> This allows the worker progress to persist for the duration
> of the command.

At the beginning of a parallel operation, we allocate a chunk of
dynamic shared memory which persists even after some or all workers
have exited. It's only torn down at the end of the parallel operation.
That seems like the appropriate place to be storing any kind of data
that needs to be propagated between parallel workers. The current
patch uses the main shared memory segment, which seems unacceptable to
me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2022-04-05T17:31:25Z

On 2022-04-05 16:42:28 +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> >    Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate workers
> >    with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress fields
> >    to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the leader and workers
> >    progress fields can be combined to show the overall progress?
>
> The original intent was this, however the workers
> can exit before the command completes and the
> worker progress data will be lost.

Can't the progress data trivially be inferred by the fact that the worker
completed?

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-04-05T18:45:09Z

>    Can't the progress data trivially be inferred by the fact that the worker
>    completed?

Yes, at some point, this idea was experimented with in
0004-Expose-progress-for-the-vacuuming-indexes-cleanup-ph.patch.
This patch did the calculation in system_views.sql

However, the view is complex and there could be some edge
cases with inferring the values that lead to wrong values being reported.

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-04-06T21:22:38Z

>    At the beginning of a parallel operation, we allocate a chunk of>
>    dynamic shared memory which persists even after some or all workers
>    have exited. It's only torn down at the end of the parallel operation.
>    That seems like the appropriate place to be storing any kind of data
>    that needs to be propagated between parallel workers. The current
>    patch uses the main shared memory segment, which seems unacceptable to
>    me.

Correct, DSM does track shared data. However only participating
processes in the parallel vacuum can attach and lookup this data.

The purpose of the main shared memory is to allow a process that
Is querying the progress views to retrieve the information.

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2022-04-07T13:20:04Z

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:22 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> >    At the beginning of a parallel operation, we allocate a chunk of>
> >    dynamic shared memory which persists even after some or all workers
> >    have exited. It's only torn down at the end of the parallel operation.
> >    That seems like the appropriate place to be storing any kind of data
> >    that needs to be propagated between parallel workers. The current
> >    patch uses the main shared memory segment, which seems unacceptable to
> >    me.
>
> Correct, DSM does track shared data. However only participating
> processes in the parallel vacuum can attach and lookup this data.
>
> The purpose of the main shared memory is to allow a process that
> Is querying the progress views to retrieve the information.

Sure, but I think that you should likely be doing what Andres
recommended before:

# Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate workers
# with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress fields
# to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the leader and workers
# progress fields can be combined to show the overall progress?

That is, I am imagining that you would want to use DSM to propagate
data from workers back to the leader and then have the leader report
the data using the existing progress-reporting facilities. Now, if we
really need a whole row from each worker that doesn't work, but why do
we need that?

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-04-07T15:38:36Z

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:20 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:22 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
> > >    At the beginning of a parallel operation, we allocate a chunk of>
> > >    dynamic shared memory which persists even after some or all workers
> > >    have exited. It's only torn down at the end of the parallel operation.
> > >    That seems like the appropriate place to be storing any kind of data
> > >    that needs to be propagated between parallel workers. The current
> > >    patch uses the main shared memory segment, which seems unacceptable to
> > >    me.
> >
> > Correct, DSM does track shared data. However only participating
> > processes in the parallel vacuum can attach and lookup this data.
> >
> > The purpose of the main shared memory is to allow a process that
> > Is querying the progress views to retrieve the information.
>
> Sure, but I think that you should likely be doing what Andres
> recommended before:
>
> # Why isn't the obvious thing to do here to provide a way to associate workers
> # with their leaders in shared memory, but to use the existing progress fields
> # to report progress? Then, when querying progress, the leader and workers
> # progress fields can be combined to show the overall progress?
>
> That is, I am imagining that you would want to use DSM to propagate
> data from workers back to the leader and then have the leader report
> the data using the existing progress-reporting facilities. Now, if we
> really need a whole row from each worker that doesn't work, but why do
> we need that?

+1

I also proposed the same idea before[1]. The leader can know how many
indexes are processed so far by checking PVIndStats.status allocated
on DSM for each index. We can have the leader check it and update the
progress information before and after vacuuming one index. If we want
to update the progress information more timely, probably we can pass a
callback function to ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup so that the
leader can do that periodically, e.g., every 1000 blocks, while
vacuuming an index.

Regards,

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoBW6SMJ96CNoMeu%2Bf_BR4jmatPcfVA016FdD2hkLDsaTA%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> — 2022-04-07T23:25:01Z

It looks like this patch got feedback from Andres and Robert with some
significant design change recommendations. I'm marking the patch
Returned with Feedback. Feel free to add it back to a future
commitfest when a new version is ready.

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-04-14T01:32:54Z

Taking the above feedback, I modified the patches
and I believe this approach should be acceptable.

For now, I also reduced the scope to only exposing
Indexes_total and indexes_completed in 
pg_stat_progress_vacuum. I will create a new CF entry
for the new view pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index.

V10-0001: This patch adds a callback to ParallelContext
that could be called by the leader in vacuumparallel.c
and more importantly while the leader is waiting
for the parallel workers to complete inside.

This ensures that the leader is continuously polling and
reporting completed indexes for the life of the PARALLEL
VACUUM. This covers cases where the leader completes 
vacuuming before the workers complete.

V10-0002: This implements the indexes_total and
indexes_completed columns in pg_stat_progress_vacuum.

This work is now tracked in the next commitfest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3617/


Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-05-02T03:30:12Z

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:32 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Taking the above feedback, I modified the patches
> and I believe this approach should be acceptable.
>
> For now, I also reduced the scope to only exposing
> Indexes_total and indexes_completed in
> pg_stat_progress_vacuum. I will create a new CF entry
> for the new view pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index.
>
> V10-0001: This patch adds a callback to ParallelContext
> that could be called by the leader in vacuumparallel.c
> and more importantly while the leader is waiting
> for the parallel workers to complete inside.

Thank you for updating the patch! The new design looks much better to me.

 typedef struct ParallelWorkerInfo
@@ -46,6 +49,8 @@ typedef struct ParallelContext
    ParallelWorkerInfo *worker;
    int         nknown_attached_workers;
    bool       *known_attached_workers;
+   ParallelProgressCallback parallel_progress_callback;
+   void            *parallel_progress_callback_arg;
 } ParallelContext;

I think we can pass the progress update function to
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), which seems simpler. And we can call
the function after updating the index status to
PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.

BTW, currently we don't need a lock for touching index status since
each worker touches different indexes. But after this patch, the
leader will touch all index status, do we need a lock for that?

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-05-05T19:26:51Z

Thank you for the feedback!

>    I think we can pass the progress update function to
>   WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), which seems simpler. And we can call

Directly passing the callback to WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish
will require us to modify the function signature.

To me, it seemed simpler and touches less code to have
the caller set the callback in the ParallelContext.

>    the function after updating the index status to
>    PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.

I also like this better. Will make the change.

>    BTW, currently we don't need a lock for touching index status since
>    each worker touches different indexes. But after this patch, the
>    leader will touch all index status, do we need a lock for that?

I do not think locking is needed here. The leader and workers
will continue to touch different indexes to update the status.

However, if the process is a leader, it will call the function
which will go through indstats and count how many
Indexes have a status of PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.
This value is then reported to the leaders backend only.


Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-05-26T13:41:09Z

    >    the function after updating the index status to
    >    PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.

>    I also like this better. Will make the change.

I updated the patch. The progress function is called after
updating index status to PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.

I believe all comments have been addressed at this point.

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-05-26T15:43:12Z

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 4:26 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the feedback!
>
> >    I think we can pass the progress update function to
> >   WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), which seems simpler. And we can call
>
> Directly passing the callback to WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish
> will require us to modify the function signature.
>
> To me, it seemed simpler and touches less code to have
> the caller set the callback in the ParallelContext.

Okay, but if we do that, I think we should add comments about when
it's used. The callback is used only when
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), but not when
WaitForParallelWorkersToExit().

Another idea I came up with is that we can wait for all index vacuums
to finish while checking and updating the progress information, and
then calls WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish after confirming all index
status became COMPLETED. That way, we don’t need to change the
parallel query infrastructure. What do you think?

>
> >    the function after updating the index status to
> >    PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.
>
> I also like this better. Will make the change.
>
> >    BTW, currently we don't need a lock for touching index status since
> >    each worker touches different indexes. But after this patch, the
> >    leader will touch all index status, do we need a lock for that?
>
> I do not think locking is needed here. The leader and workers
> will continue to touch different indexes to update the status.
>
> However, if the process is a leader, it will call the function
> which will go through indstats and count how many
> Indexes have a status of PARALLEL_INDVAC_STATUS_COMPLETED.
> This value is then reported to the leaders backend only.

I was concerned that the leader process could report the wrong
progress if updating and checking index status happen concurrently.
But I think it should be fine since we can read PVIndVacStatus
atomically.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-05-27T01:52:10Z

>    Another idea I came up with is that we can wait for all index vacuums
>    to finish while checking and updating the progress information, and
>    then calls WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish after confirming all index
>    status became COMPLETED. That way, we don’t need to change the
>    parallel query infrastructure. What do you think?

Thinking about this a bit more, the idea of using 
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish
Will not work if you have a leader worker that is
stuck on a large index. The progress will not be updated
until the leader completes. Even if the parallel workers
finish.

What are your thought about piggybacking on the 
vacuum_delay_point to update progress. The leader can 
perhaps keep a counter to update progress every few thousand
calls to vacuum_delay_point. 

This goes back to your original idea to keep updating progress
while scanning the indexes.

/*
 * vacuum_delay_point --- check for interrupts and cost-based delay.
 *
 * This should be called in each major loop of VACUUM processing,
 * typically once per page processed.
 */
void
vacuum_delay_point(void)
{

---
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-06-03T05:39:52Z

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:52 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    Another idea I came up with is that we can wait for all index vacuums
> >    to finish while checking and updating the progress information, and
> >    then calls WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish after confirming all index
> >    status became COMPLETED. That way, we don’t need to change the
> >    parallel query infrastructure. What do you think?
>
> Thinking about this a bit more, the idea of using
> WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish
> Will not work if you have a leader worker that is
> stuck on a large index. The progress will not be updated
> until the leader completes. Even if the parallel workers
> finish.

Right.

>
> What are your thought about piggybacking on the
> vacuum_delay_point to update progress. The leader can
> perhaps keep a counter to update progress every few thousand
> calls to vacuum_delay_point.
>
> This goes back to your original idea to keep updating progress
> while scanning the indexes.

I think we can have the leader process wait for all index statuses to
become COMPLETED before WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(). While
waiting for it, the leader can update its progress information. After
the leader confirmed all index statuses became COMPLETED, it can wait
for the workers to finish by WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish().

Regarding waiting in vacuum_delay_point, it might be a side effect as
it’s called every page and used not only by vacuum such as analyze,
but it seems to be worth trying.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2022-06-06T14:41:54Z

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:43 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another idea I came up with is that we can wait for all index vacuums
> to finish while checking and updating the progress information, and
> then calls WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish after confirming all index
> status became COMPLETED. That way, we don’t need to change the
> parallel query infrastructure. What do you think?

+1 from me. It doesn't seem to me that we should need to add something
like parallel_vacuum_progress_callback in order to solve this problem,
because the parallel index vacuum code could just do the waiting
itself, as you propose here.

The question Sami asks him his reply is a good one, though -- who is
to say that the leader only needs to update progress at the end, once
it's finished the index it's handling locally? There will need to be a
callback system of some kind to allow the leader to update progress as
other workers finish, even if the leader is still working. I am not
too sure that the idea of using the vacuum delay points is the best
plan. I think we should try to avoid piggybacking on such general
infrastructure if we can, and instead look for a way to tie this to
something that is specific to parallel vacuum. However, I haven't
studied the problem so I'm not sure whether there's a reasonable way
to do that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-06-20T06:35:00Z

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:42 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:43 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another idea I came up with is that we can wait for all index vacuums
> > to finish while checking and updating the progress information, and
> > then calls WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish after confirming all index
> > status became COMPLETED. That way, we don’t need to change the
> > parallel query infrastructure. What do you think?
>
> +1 from me. It doesn't seem to me that we should need to add something
> like parallel_vacuum_progress_callback in order to solve this problem,
> because the parallel index vacuum code could just do the waiting
> itself, as you propose here.
>
> The question Sami asks him his reply is a good one, though -- who is
> to say that the leader only needs to update progress at the end, once
> it's finished the index it's handling locally? There will need to be a
> callback system of some kind to allow the leader to update progress as
> other workers finish, even if the leader is still working. I am not
> too sure that the idea of using the vacuum delay points is the best
> plan. I think we should try to avoid piggybacking on such general
> infrastructure if we can, and instead look for a way to tie this to
> something that is specific to parallel vacuum. However, I haven't
> studied the problem so I'm not sure whether there's a reasonable way
> to do that.

One idea would be to add a flag, say report_parallel_vacuum_progress,
to IndexVacuumInfo struct and expect index AM to check and update the
parallel index vacuum progress, say every 1GB blocks processed. The
flag is true only when the leader process is vacuuming an index.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com> — 2022-08-02T18:06:59Z

This entry has been waiting on author input for a while (our current
threshold is roughly two weeks), so I've marked it Returned with
Feedback.

Once you think the patchset is ready for review again, you (or any
interested party) can resurrect the patch entry by visiting

    https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3617/

and changing the status to "Needs Review", and then changing the
status again to "Move to next CF". (Don't forget the second step;
hopefully we will have streamlined this in the near future!)

Thanks,
--Jacob

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-10-11T13:50:51Z

>    One idea would be to add a flag, say report_parallel_vacuum_progress,
>    to IndexVacuumInfo struct and expect index AM to check and update the
>    parallel index vacuum progress, say every 1GB blocks processed. The
>    flag is true only when the leader process is vacuuming an index.

>    Regards,

Sorry for the long delay on this. I have taken the approach as suggested
by Sawada-san and Robert and attached is v12.

1. The patch introduces a new counter in the same shared memory already
used by the parallel leader and workers to keep track of the number
of indexes completed. This way there is no reason to loop through
the index status every time we want to get the status of indexes completed.

2. A new function in vacuumparallel.c will be used to update
the progress of indexes completed by reading from the
counter created in point #1.

3. The function is called during the vacuum_delay_point as a
matter of convenience, since this is called in all major vacuum
loops. The function will only do something if the caller
sets a boolean to report progress. Doing so will also ensure
progress is being reported in case the parallel workers completed
before the leader.

4. Rather than adding any complexity to WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish
and introducing a new callback, vacuumparallel.c will wait until
the number of vacuum workers is 0 and then call
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish as it does currently.

5. Went back to the idea of adding a new view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
which is accomplished by adding a new type called VACUUM_PARALLEL in progress.h

Thanks,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Servies (AWS)

FYI: the above message was originally sent yesterday but 
was created under a separate thread. Please ignore this
thread[1]

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4CD97E17-B9E4-421E-9A53-4317C90EFF35%40amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-10-12T07:15:19Z

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:50 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    One idea would be to add a flag, say report_parallel_vacuum_progress,
> >    to IndexVacuumInfo struct and expect index AM to check and update the
> >    parallel index vacuum progress, say every 1GB blocks processed. The
> >    flag is true only when the leader process is vacuuming an index.
>
> >    Regards,
>
> Sorry for the long delay on this. I have taken the approach as suggested
> by Sawada-san and Robert and attached is v12.

Thank you for updating the patch!

>
> 1. The patch introduces a new counter in the same shared memory already
> used by the parallel leader and workers to keep track of the number
> of indexes completed. This way there is no reason to loop through
> the index status every time we want to get the status of indexes completed.

While it seems to be a good idea to have the atomic counter for the
number of indexes completed, I think we should not use the global
variable referencing the counter as follow:

+static pg_atomic_uint32 *index_vacuum_completed = NULL;
:
+void
+parallel_vacuum_progress_report(void)
+{
+   if (IsParallelWorker() || !report_parallel_vacuum_progress)
+       return;
+
+   pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
+                                pg_atomic_read_u32(index_vacuum_completed));
+}

I think we can pass ParallelVacuumState (or PVIndStats) to the
reporting function so that it can check the counter and report the
progress.

> 2. A new function in vacuumparallel.c will be used to update
> the progress of indexes completed by reading from the
> counter created in point #1.
>
> 3. The function is called during the vacuum_delay_point as a
> matter of convenience, since this is called in all major vacuum
> loops. The function will only do something if the caller
> sets a boolean to report progress. Doing so will also ensure
> progress is being reported in case the parallel workers completed
> before the leader.

Robert pointed out:

---
I am not too sure that the idea of using the vacuum delay points is the best
plan. I think we should try to avoid piggybacking on such general
infrastructure if we can, and instead look for a way to tie this to
something that is specific to parallel vacuum.
---

I agree with this part.

Instead, I think we can add a boolean and the pointer for
ParallelVacuumState to IndexVacuumInfo. If the boolean is true, an
index AM can call the reporting function with the pointer to
ParallelVacuumState while scanning index blocks, for example, for
every 1GB. The boolean can be true only for the leader process.

>
> 4. Rather than adding any complexity to WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish
> and introducing a new callback, vacuumparallel.c will wait until
> the number of vacuum workers is 0 and then call
> WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish as it does currently.

Agreed, but with the following change, the leader process waits in a
busy loop, which should not be acceptable:

+   if (VacuumActiveNWorkers)
+   {
+       while (pg_atomic_read_u32(VacuumActiveNWorkers) > 0)
+       {
+           parallel_vacuum_progress_report();
+       }
+   }
+

Also, I think it's better to check whether idx_completed_progress
equals to the number indexes instead.

> 5. Went back to the idea of adding a new view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
> which is accomplished by adding a new type called VACUUM_PARALLEL in progress.h

Probably, we can devide the patch into two patches. One for adding the
new statistics of the number of vacuumed indexes to
pg_stat_progress_vacuum and another one for adding new statistics view
pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-10-14T20:05:41Z

Thank you for the feedback!

>    While it seems to be a good idea to have the atomic counter for the
>    number of indexes completed, I think we should not use the global
>    variable referencing the counter as follow:

>    +static pg_atomic_uint32 *index_vacuum_completed = NULL;
>    :
>    +void
>    +parallel_vacuum_progress_report(void)
>    +{
>    +   if (IsParallelWorker() || !report_parallel_vacuum_progress)
>    +       return;
>    +
>    +   pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
>    +                                pg_atomic_read_u32(index_vacuum_completed));
>    +}

>    I think we can pass ParallelVacuumState (or PVIndStats) to the
>    reporting function so that it can check the counter and report the
>    progress.

Yes, that makes sense.

>    ---
>    I am not too sure that the idea of using the vacuum delay points is the best
>    plan. I think we should try to avoid piggybacking on such general
>    infrastructure if we can, and instead look for a way to tie this to
>   something that is specific to parallel vacuum.
>    ---

Adding the call to vacuum_delay_point made sense since it's
called in all major vacuum scans. While it is also called
by analyze, it will only do anything if the caller sets a flag
to report_parallel_vacuum_progress.


 >   Instead, I think we can add a boolean and the pointer for
 >   ParallelVacuumState to IndexVacuumInfo. If the boolean is true, an
 >   index AM can call the reporting function with the pointer to
 >   ParallelVacuumState while scanning index blocks, for example, for
 >   every 1GB. The boolean can be true only for the leader process.

Will doing this every 1GB be necessary? Considering the function
will not do much more than update progress from the value
stored in index_vacuum_completed?


>   Agreed, but with the following change, the leader process waits in a
>    busy loop, which should not be acceptable:

Good point.

>    Also, I think it's better to check whether idx_completed_progress
    equals to the number indexes instead.

Good point

    > 5. Went back to the idea of adding a new view called pg_stat_progress_vacuum_index
    > which is accomplished by adding a new type called VACUUM_PARALLEL in progress.h

>    Probably, we can devide the patch into two patches. One for adding the

Makes sense.

Thanks

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-11-02T16:52:19Z

Attached is v13-0001--Show-progress-for-index-vacuums.patch which addresses
the latest comments. The main changes are:

1/ Call the parallel_vacuum_progress_report inside the AMs rather than vacuum_delay_point.

2/ A Boolean when set to True in vacuumparallel.c will be used to determine if calling
parallel_vacuum_progress_report is necessary.

3/ Removed global varilable from vacuumparallel.c

4/ Went back to calling parallel_vacuum_progress_report inside 
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish to cover the case when a 
leader is waiting for parallel workers to finish.

5/ I did not see a need to only report progress after 1GB as it's a fairly cheap call to update
progress.

6/ v1-0001-Function-to-return-currently-vacuumed-or-cleaned-ind.patch is a separate patch
for exposing the index relid being vacuumed by a backend. 

Thanks

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com> — 2022-11-03T08:16:21Z

2022年11月3日(木) 1:52 Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com>:
>
> Attached is v13-0001--Show-progress-for-index-vacuums.patch which addresses
> the latest comments. The main changes are:
>
> 1/ Call the parallel_vacuum_progress_report inside the AMs rather than vacuum_delay_point.
>
> 2/ A Boolean when set to True in vacuumparallel.c will be used to determine if calling
> parallel_vacuum_progress_report is necessary.
>
> 3/ Removed global varilable from vacuumparallel.c
>
> 4/ Went back to calling parallel_vacuum_progress_report inside
> WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish to cover the case when a
> leader is waiting for parallel workers to finish.
>
> 5/ I did not see a need to only report progress after 1GB as it's a fairly cheap call to update
> progress.
>
> 6/ v1-0001-Function-to-return-currently-vacuumed-or-cleaned-ind.patch is a separate patch
> for exposing the index relid being vacuumed by a backend.

This entry was marked "Needs review" in the CommitFest app but cfbot
reports the patch [1] no longer applies.

[1] this patch:
v1-0001-Function-to-return-currently-vacuumed-or-cleaned-ind.patch

We've marked it as "Waiting on Author". As CommitFest 2022-11 is
currently underway, this would be an excellent time update the patch.

Once you think the patchset is ready for review again, you (or any
interested party) can  move the patch entry forward by visiting

    https://commitfest.postgresql.org/40/3617/

and changing the status to "Needs review".


Thanks

Ian Barwick

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-11-04T13:27:34Z
```
Resubmitting patches with proper format.

Thanks

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
```

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-11-08T07:49:27Z

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:52 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Attached is v13-0001--Show-progress-for-index-vacuums.patch which addresses
> the latest comments.

Thank you for updating the patch!

> 4/ Went back to calling parallel_vacuum_progress_report inside
> WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish to cover the case when a
> leader is waiting for parallel workers to finish.

I don't think we need to modify WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish to
cover that case. Instead, I think the leader process can execute a new
function. The function will be like WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish()
but simpler; it just updates the progress information if necessary and
then checks if idx_completed_progress is equal to the number of
indexes to vacuum. If yes, return from the function and call
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish() to wait for all workers to finish.
Otherwise, it naps by using WaitLatch() and does this loop again.

---
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ typedef struct ParallelContext
         ParallelWorkerInfo *worker;
         int                    nknown_attached_workers;
         bool      *known_attached_workers;
+        void       (*parallel_progress_callback)(void *arg);
+        void       *parallel_progress_arg;
 } ParallelContext;

With the above change I suggested, I think we won't need to have a
callback function in ParallelContext. Instead, I think we can have
index-AMs call parallel_vacuum_report() if report_parallel_progress is
true.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada

Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2022-11-09T03:00:30Z

Hi,

On 2022-11-04 13:27:34 +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c b/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c
> index b4fa5f6bf8..3d5e4600dc 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c
> @@ -633,6 +633,9 @@ ginbulkdelete(IndexVacuumInfo *info, IndexBulkDeleteResult *stats,
>  		UnlockReleaseBuffer(buffer);
>  		buffer = ReadBufferExtended(index, MAIN_FORKNUM, blkno,
>  									RBM_NORMAL, info->strategy);
> +
> +		if (info->report_parallel_progress)
> +			info->parallel_progress_callback(info->parallel_progress_arg);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* right now we found leftmost page in entry's BTree */

I don't think any of these progress callbacks should be done while pinning a
buffer and ...

> @@ -677,6 +680,9 @@ ginbulkdelete(IndexVacuumInfo *info, IndexBulkDeleteResult *stats,
>  		buffer = ReadBufferExtended(index, MAIN_FORKNUM, blkno,
>  									RBM_NORMAL, info->strategy);
>  		LockBuffer(buffer, GIN_EXCLUSIVE);
> +
> +		if (info->report_parallel_progress)
> +			info->parallel_progress_callback(info->parallel_progress_arg);
>  	}
>  
>  	MemoryContextDelete(gvs.tmpCxt);

... definitely not while holding a buffer lock.

I also don't understand why info->parallel_progress_callback exists? It's only
set to parallel_vacuum_progress_report(). Why make this stuff more expensive
than it has to already be?

> +parallel_vacuum_progress_report(void *arg)
> +{
> +	ParallelVacuumState *pvs = (ParallelVacuumState *) arg;
> +
> +	if (IsParallelWorker())
> +		return;
> +
> +	pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
> +								 pg_atomic_read_u32(&(pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress)));
> +}

So each of the places that call this need to make an additional external
function call for each page, just to find that there's nothing to do or to
make yet another indirect function call. This should probably a static inline
function.

This is called, for every single page, just to read the number of indexes
completed by workers? A number that barely ever changes?

This seems all wrong.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-11-11T19:10:16Z

>    I don't think any of these progress callbacks should be done while pinning a
>    buffer and ...

Good point.

>    I also don't understand why info->parallel_progress_callback exists? It's only
>    set to parallel_vacuum_progress_report(). Why make this stuff more expensive
>    than it has to already be?

Agree. Modified the patch to avoid the callback .

>    So each of the places that call this need to make an additional external
>    function call for each page, just to find that there's nothing to do or to
>    make yet another indirect function call. This should probably a static inline
>    function.

Even better to just remove a function call altogether.

>    This is called, for every single page, just to read the number of indexes
>    completed by workers? A number that barely ever changes?

I will take the initial suggestion by Sawada-san to update the progress
every 1GB of blocks scanned. 

Also, It sems to me that we don't need to track progress in brin indexes,
Since it is rare, if ever, this type of index will go through very heavy
block scans. In fact, I noticed the vacuum AMs for brin don't invoke the
vacuum_delay_point at all.

The attached patch addresses the feedback.


Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-11-18T13:07:22Z

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 4:10 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    I don't think any of these progress callbacks should be done while pinning a
> >    buffer and ...
>
> Good point.
>
> >    I also don't understand why info->parallel_progress_callback exists? It's only
> >    set to parallel_vacuum_progress_report(). Why make this stuff more expensive
> >    than it has to already be?
>
> Agree. Modified the patch to avoid the callback .
>
> >    So each of the places that call this need to make an additional external
> >    function call for each page, just to find that there's nothing to do or to
> >    make yet another indirect function call. This should probably a static inline
> >    function.
>
> Even better to just remove a function call altogether.
>
> >    This is called, for every single page, just to read the number of indexes
> >    completed by workers? A number that barely ever changes?
>
> I will take the initial suggestion by Sawada-san to update the progress
> every 1GB of blocks scanned.
>
> Also, It sems to me that we don't need to track progress in brin indexes,
> Since it is rare, if ever, this type of index will go through very heavy
> block scans. In fact, I noticed the vacuum AMs for brin don't invoke the
> vacuum_delay_point at all.
>
> The attached patch addresses the feedback.
>

Thank you for updating the patch! Here are review comments on v15 patch:

+      <para>
+       Number of indexes that wil be vacuumed. This value will be
+       <literal>0</literal> if there are no indexes to vacuum or
+       vacuum failsafe is triggered.

I think that indexes_total should be 0 also when INDEX_CLEANUP is off.

---
+        /*
+         * Reset the indexes completed at this point.
+         * If we end up in another index vacuum cycle, we will
+         * start counting from the start.
+         */
+        pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED, 0);

I think we don't need to reset it at the end of index vacuuming. There
is a small window before switching to the next phase. If we reset this
value while showing "index vacuuming" phase, the user might get
confused. Instead, we can reset it at the beginning of the index
vacuuming.

---
+void
+parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(ParallelVacuumState *pvs)
+{
+        while (pg_atomic_read_u32(&(pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress))
< pvs->nindexes)
+        {
+                pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
+
   pg_atomic_read_u32(&(pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress)));
+
+                (void) WaitLatch(MyLatch, WL_LATCH_SET |
WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, -1,
+                                                 WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_FINISH);
+                ResetLatch(MyLatch);
+        }
+}

We should add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() at the beginning of the loop to
make the wait interruptible.

I think it would be better to update the counter only when the value
has been increased.

I think we should set a timeout, say 1 sec, to WaitLatch so that it
can periodically check the progress.

Probably it's better to have a new wait event for this wait in order
to distinguish wait for workers to complete index vacuum from the wait
for workers to exit.

---
@@ -838,7 +867,12 @@
parallel_vacuum_process_one_index(ParallelVacuumState *pvs, Relation
indrel,
         ivinfo.estimated_count = pvs->shared->estimated_count;
         ivinfo.num_heap_tuples = pvs->shared->reltuples;
         ivinfo.strategy = pvs->bstrategy;
-
+        ivinfo.idx_completed_progress = pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress;

and

@@ -998,6 +998,9 @@ btvacuumscan(IndexVacuumInfo *info,
IndexBulkDeleteResult *stats,
                         if (info->report_progress)

pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_SCAN_BLOCKS_DONE,

                   scanblkno);
+                        if (info->report_parallel_progress &&
(scanblkno % REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES) == 0)
+
pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
+

pg_atomic_read_u32(&(info->idx_completed_progress)));
                 }

I think this doesn't work, since ivinfo.idx_completed is in the
backend-local memory. Instead, I think we can have a function in
vacuumparallel.c that updates the progress. Then we can have index AM
call this function.

---
+        if (!IsParallelWorker())
+                ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = true;
+        else
+                ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = false;

We can do like:

ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = !IsParallelWorker();

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-11-28T23:57:14Z

>   I think that indexes_total should be 0 also when INDEX_CLEANUP is off.

Patch updated for handling of INDEX_CLEANUP = off, with an update to
the documentation as well.

>    I think we don't need to reset it at the end of index vacuuming. There
>    is a small window before switching to the next phase. If we reset this
>    value while showing "index vacuuming" phase, the user might get
>    confused. Instead, we can reset it at the beginning of the index
>    vacuuming.

No, I think the way it's currently done is correct. We want to reset the number
of indexes completed before we increase the num_index_scans ( index vacuum cycle ).
This ensures that when we enter a new index cycle, the number of indexes completed
are already reset. The 2 fields that matter here is how many indexes are vacuumed in the
currently cycle and this is called out in the documentation as such.

>    We should add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() at the beginning of the loop to
>    make the wait interruptible.

Done.

>    I think it would be better to update the counter only when the value
>    has been increased.

Done. Did so by checking the progress value from the beentry directly
in the function. We can do a more generalized 

>    I think we should set a timeout, say 1 sec, to WaitLatch so that it
>    can periodically check the progress.

Done.

>    Probably it's better to have a new wait event for this wait in order
>    to distinguish wait for workers to complete index vacuum from the wait
>    for workers to exit.

I was trying to avoid introducing a new wait event, but thinking about it, 
I agree with your suggestion. 

I created a new ParallelVacuumFinish wait event and documentation
for the wait event.


>    I think this doesn't work, since ivinfo.idx_completed is in the
>    backend-local memory. Instead, I think we can have a function in
>    vacuumparallel.c that updates the progress. Then we can have index AM
>    call this function.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct. 

To make this work correctly, I did something similar to VacuumActiveNWorkers
and introduced an extern variable called ParallelVacuumProgress.
This variable points to pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress. 

The index AMs then call parallel_vacuum_update_progress which
Is responsible for updating the progress with the current value
of ParallelVacuumProgress. 

ParallelVacuumProgress is also set to NULL at the end of every index cycle.

>   ivinfo.report_parallel_progress = !IsParallelWorker();

Done


Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-12-06T03:18:05Z

Hi,

Thank you for updating the patch!

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 8:57 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >   I think that indexes_total should be 0 also when INDEX_CLEANUP is off.
>
> Patch updated for handling of INDEX_CLEANUP = off, with an update to
> the documentation as well.
>
> >    I think we don't need to reset it at the end of index vacuuming. There
> >    is a small window before switching to the next phase. If we reset this
> >    value while showing "index vacuuming" phase, the user might get
> >    confused. Instead, we can reset it at the beginning of the index
> >    vacuuming.
>
> No, I think the way it's currently done is correct. We want to reset the number
> of indexes completed before we increase the num_index_scans ( index vacuum cycle ).
> This ensures that when we enter a new index cycle, the number of indexes completed
> are already reset. The 2 fields that matter here is how many indexes are vacuumed in the
> currently cycle and this is called out in the documentation as such.
>

Agreed.

Here are comments on v16 patch.

--- a/contrib/bloom/blvacuum.c
+++ b/contrib/bloom/blvacuum.c
@@ -15,12 +15,14 @@
 #include "access/genam.h"
 #include "bloom.h"
 #include "catalog/storage.h"
+#include "commands/progress.h"
 #include "commands/vacuum.h"
 #include "miscadmin.h"
 #include "postmaster/autovacuum.h"
 #include "storage/bufmgr.h"
 #include "storage/indexfsm.h"
 #include "storage/lmgr.h"
+#include "utils/backend_progress.h"

I think we don't need to include them here. Probably the same is true
for other index AMs.

---
                vacuum_delay_point();
+               if (info->report_parallel_progress && (blkno %
REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES) == 0)
+                       parallel_vacuum_update_progress();
+

                buffer = ReadBufferExtended(index, MAIN_FORKNUM, blkno,

There is an extra new line.

---
+     <row>
+      <entry><literal>ParallelVacuumFinish</literal></entry>
+      <entry>Waiting for parallel vacuum workers to finish computing.</entry>
+     </row>

How about "Waiting for parallel vacuum workers to finish index vacuum"?

---
vacrel->rel = rel;
vac_open_indexes(vacrel->rel, RowExclusiveLock, &vacrel->nindexes,
                                 &vacrel->indrels);
+
if (instrument && vacrel->nindexes > 0)
{
        /* Copy index names used by instrumentation (not error reporting) */


This added line is not necessary.

---
         /* Counter for vacuuming and cleanup */
         pg_atomic_uint32 idx;
+
+        /*
+         * Counter for vacuuming and cleanup progress reporting.
+         * This value is used to report index vacuum/cleanup progress
+         * in parallel_vacuum_progress_report. We keep this
+         * counter to avoid having to loop through
+         * ParallelVacuumState->indstats to determine the number
+         * of indexes completed.
+         */
+        pg_atomic_uint32 idx_completed_progress;

I think the name of idx_completed_progress is very confusing. Since
the idx of PVShared refers to the current index in the pvs->indstats[]
whereas idx_completed_progress is the number of vacuumed indexes. How
about "nindexes_completed"?

---
+                /*
+                 * Set the shared parallel vacuum progress. This will be used
+                 * to periodically update progress.h with completed indexes
+                 * in a parallel vacuum. See comments in
parallel_vacuum_update_progress
+                 * for more details.
+                 */
+                ParallelVacuumProgress =
&(pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress);
+

Since we pass pvs to parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(), we don't
need to have ParallelVacuumProgress. I see
parallel_vacuum_update_progress() uses this value but I think it's
better to pass ParallelVacuumState to via IndexVacuumInfo.

---
+                /*
+                 * To wait for parallel workers to finish,
+                 * first call parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish
+                 * which is responsible for reporting the
+                 * number of indexes completed.
+                 *
+                 * Afterwards, WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish is called
+                 * to do the real work of waiting for parallel workers
+                 * to finish.
+                 *
+                 * Note: Both routines will acquire a WaitLatch in their
+                 * respective loops.
+                 */

How about something like:

Wait for all indexes to be vacuumed while updating the parallel vacuum
index progress. And then wait for all workers to finish.

---
         RelationGetRelationName(indrel));
         }

+        if (ivinfo.report_parallel_progress)
+                parallel_vacuum_update_progress();
+

I think it's better to update the progress info after updating
pvs->shared->idx_completed_progress.

---
+/*
+ * Check if we are done vacuuming indexes and report
+ * progress.

How about "Waiting for all indexes to be vacuumed while updating the
parallel index vacuum progress"?

+ *
+ * We nap using with a WaitLatch to avoid a busy loop.
+ *
+ * Note: This function should be used by the leader process only,
+ * and it's up to the caller to ensure this.
+ */

I think these comments are not necessary.

+void
+parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(ParallelVacuumState *pvs)

How about "parallel_vacuum_wait_to_finish"?

---
+/*
+ * Read the shared ParallelVacuumProgress and update progress.h
+ * with indexes vacuumed so far. This function is called periodically
+ * by index AMs as well as parallel_vacuum_process_one_index.
+ *
+ * To avoid unnecessarily updating progress, we check the progress
+ * values from the backend entry and only update if the value
+ * of completed indexes increases.
+ *
+ * Note: This function should be used by the leader process only,
+ * and it's up to the caller to ensure this.
+ */
+void
+parallel_vacuum_update_progress(void)
+{
+        volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry;
+
+        Assert(!IsParallelWorker);
+
+        if (beentry && ParallelVacuumProgress)
+        {
+                int parallel_vacuum_current_value =
beentry->st_progress_param[PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED];
+                int parallel_vacuum_new_value =
pg_atomic_read_u32(ParallelVacuumProgress);
+
+                if (parallel_vacuum_new_value > parallel_vacuum_current_value)
+
pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
parallel_vacuum_new_value);
+        }
+}

parallel_vacuum_update_progress() is typically called every 1GB so I
think we don't need to worry about unnecessary update. Also, I think
this code doesn't work when pgstat_track_activities is false. Instead,
I think that in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(), we can check
the value of pvs->nindexes_completed and update the progress if there
is an update or it's first time.

---
+                (void) WaitLatch(MyLatch, WL_TIMEOUT | WL_LATCH_SET |
WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, PARALLEL_VACUUM_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT,
+
WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_FINISH);
+                ResetLatch(MyLatch);

I think we don't necessarily need to use
PARALLEL_VACUUM_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT here. Probably we can use 1000L
instead. If we want to use PARALLEL_VACUUM_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT, we need
comments for that:

+#define PARALLEL_VACUUM_PROGRESS_TIMEOUT       1000

---
-        WAIT_EVENT_XACT_GROUP_UPDATE
+        WAIT_EVENT_XACT_GROUP_UPDATE,
+        WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_FINISH
 } WaitEventIPC;

 Enums of WaitEventIPC should be defined in alphabetical order.

---
cfbot fails.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-12-13T04:40:02Z

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with the feedback, except
for 

>    need to have ParallelVacuumProgress. I see
>    parallel_vacuum_update_progress() uses this value but I think it's
>    better to pass ParallelVacuumState to via IndexVacuumInfo.

I was trying to avoid passing a pointer to
ParallelVacuumState in IndexVacuuminfo.

ParallelVacuumProgress is implemented in the same
way as VacuumSharedCostBalance and 
VacuumActiveNWorkers. See vacuum.h

These values are reset at the start of a parallel vacuum cycle
and reset at the end of an index vacuum cycle.

This seems like a better approach and less invasive.
What would be a reason not to go with this approach?


> parallel_vacuum_update_progress() is typically called every 1GB so I
> think we don't need to worry about unnecessary update. Also, I think
> this code doesn't work when pgstat_track_activities is false. Instead,
> I think that in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish(), we can check
> the value of pvs->nindexes_completed and update the progress if there
> is an update or it's first time.

I agree that we don’t need to worry about unnecessary updates
in parallel_vacuum_update_progress since we are calling
every 1GB. I also don't think we should do anything additional
in parallel_wait_for_workers_to_finish since here we are only
updating every 1 second.

Thanks,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2022-12-14T01:43:10Z

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:40 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I agree with the feedback, except
> for
>
> >    need to have ParallelVacuumProgress. I see
> >    parallel_vacuum_update_progress() uses this value but I think it's
> >    better to pass ParallelVacuumState to via IndexVacuumInfo.
>
> I was trying to avoid passing a pointer to
> ParallelVacuumState in IndexVacuuminfo.
>
> ParallelVacuumProgress is implemented in the same
> way as VacuumSharedCostBalance and
> VacuumActiveNWorkers. See vacuum.h
>
> These values are reset at the start of a parallel vacuum cycle
> and reset at the end of an index vacuum cycle.
>
> This seems like a better approach and less invasive.
> What would be a reason not to go with this approach?

First of all, I don't think we need to declare ParallelVacuumProgress
in vacuum.c since it's set and used only in vacuumparallel.c. But I
don't even think it's a good idea to declare it in vacuumparallel.c as
a static variable. The primary reason is that it adds things we need
to care about. For example, what if we raise an error during index
vacuum? The transaction aborts but ParallelVacuumProgress still refers
to something old. Suppose further that the next parallel vacuum
doesn't launch any workers, the leader process would still end up
accessing the old value pointed by ParallelVacuumProgress, which
causes a SEGV. So we need to reset it anyway at the beginning of the
parallel vacuum. It's easy to fix at this time but once the parallel
vacuum code gets more complex, it could forget to care about it.

IMO VacuumSharedCostBalance and VacuumActiveNWorkers have a different
story. They are set in vacuumparallel.c and are used in vacuum.c for
vacuum delay. If they weren't global variables, we would need to pass
them to every function that could eventually call the vacuum delay
function. So it makes sense to me to have them as global variables.On
the other hand, for ParallelVacuumProgress, it's a common pattern that
ambulkdelete(), amvacuumcleanup() or a common index scan routine like
btvacuumscan() checks the progress. I don't think index AM needs to
pass the value down to many of its functions. So it makes sense to me
to pass it via IndexVacuumInfo.

Having said that, I'd like to hear opinions also from other hackers, I
might be wrong and it's more invasive as you pointed out.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2022-12-14T05:09:46Z

>    First of all, I don't think we need to declare ParallelVacuumProgress
>    in vacuum.c since it's set and used only in vacuumparallel.c. But I
>    don't even think it's a good idea to declare it in vacuumparallel.c as
>    a static variable. The primary reason is that it adds things we need
>   to care about. For example, what if we raise an error during index
>    vacuum? The transaction aborts but ParallelVacuumProgress still refers
>    to something old. Suppose further that the next parallel vacuum
>    doesn't launch any workers, the leader process would still end up
>    accessing the old value pointed by ParallelVacuumProgress, which
>    causes a SEGV. So we need to reset it anyway at the beginning of the
>    parallel vacuum. It's easy to fix at this time but once the parallel
>   vacuum code gets more complex, it could forget to care about it.

>    IMO VacuumSharedCostBalance and VacuumActiveNWorkers have a different
>    story. They are set in vacuumparallel.c and are used in vacuum.c for
>    vacuum delay. If they weren't global variables, we would need to pass
>    them to every function that could eventually call the vacuum delay
>    function. So it makes sense to me to have them as global variables.On
>    the other hand, for ParallelVacuumProgress, it's a common pattern that
>    ambulkdelete(), amvacuumcleanup() or a common index scan routine like
>    btvacuumscan() checks the progress. I don't think index AM needs to
>    pass the value down to many of its functions. So it makes sense to me
>    to pass it via IndexVacuumInfo.

Thanks for the detailed explanation and especially clearing up
my understanding of VacuumSharedCostBalance and VacuumActiveNWorker.

I do now think that passing ParallelVacuumState in IndexVacuumInfo is
a more optimal choice.

Attached version addresses the above and the previous comments.


Thanks

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2022-12-30T18:39:55Z

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:09:46AM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> Attached version addresses the above and the previous comments.

cfbot is complaining that this patch no longer applies.  Sami, would you
mind rebasing it?

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-02T04:34:26Z

>    cfbot is complaining that this patch no longer applies.  Sami, would you
>    mind rebasing it?

Rebased patch attached.

--
Sami Imseih    
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> — 2023-01-03T10:49:03Z

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 10:04, Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    cfbot is complaining that this patch no longer applies.  Sami, would you
> >    mind rebasing it?
>
> Rebased patch attached.

CFBot shows some compilation errors as in [1], please post an updated
version for the same:
[07:01:58.889] In file included from ../../../src/include/postgres.h:47,
[07:01:58.889] from vacuumparallel.c:27:
[07:01:58.889] vacuumparallel.c: In function ‘parallel_vacuum_update_progress’:
[07:01:58.889] vacuumparallel.c:1118:10: error: ‘IsParallelWorker’
undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean
‘ParallelWorkerMain’?
[07:01:58.889] 1118 | Assert(!IsParallelWorker);
[07:01:58.889] | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[07:01:58.889] ../../../src/include/c.h:859:9: note: in definition of
macro ‘Assert’
[07:01:58.889] 859 | if (!(condition)) \
[07:01:58.889] | ^~~~~~~~~
[07:01:58.889] vacuumparallel.c:1118:10: note: each undeclared
identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
[07:01:58.889] 1118 | Assert(!IsParallelWorker);
[07:01:58.889] | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] - https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4557389261701120

Regards,
Vignesh

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-03T16:46:15Z

> cirrus-ci.com/task/4557389261701120

I earlier compiled without building with --enable-cassert,
which is why the compilation errors did not produce on my
buid.

Fixed in v19.

Thanks

--
Sami Imseih    
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> — 2023-01-04T09:50:31Z

Hi,

On 1/3/23 5:46 PM, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> cirrus-ci.com/task/4557389261701120
> 
> I earlier compiled without building with --enable-cassert,
> which is why the compilation errors did not produce on my
> buid.
> 
> Fixed in v19.
> 
> Thanks
> 

Thanks for the updated patch!

Some comments about it:

+
+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       Number of indexes that wil be vacuumed. This value will be

Typo: wil

+       /* report number of indexes to vacuum, if we are told to cleanup indexes */
+       if (vacrel->do_index_cleanup)
+               pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_TOTAL, vacrel->nindexes);

"Report" instead? (to looks like the surrounding code)

+                       /*
+                        * Done vacuuming an index. Increment the indexes completed
+                        */
+                       pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
+                                                                                idx + 1);

"Increment the indexes completed." (dot at the end) instead?

-        * Increase and report the number of index scans.
+        * Reset and report the number of indexes scanned.
+        * Also, increase and report the number of index
+        * scans.

What about "Reset and report zero as the number of indexes scanned."? (just to make clear we
don't want to report the value as it was prior to the reset)

-               /* Disable index vacuuming, index cleanup, and heap rel truncation */
+               /*
+                * Disable index vacuuming, index cleanup, and heap rel truncation
+                *

The new "Disable index vacuuming, index cleanup, and heap rel truncation" needs a dot at the end.

+                * Also, report to progress.h that we are no longer tracking
+                * index vacuum/cleanup.
+                */

"Also, report that we are" instead?

+                       /*
+                        * Done cleaning an index. Increment the indexes completed
+                        */

Needs a dot at the end.

-       /* Reset the parallel index processing counter */
+       /* Reset the parallel index processing counter ( index progress counter also ) */

"Reset the parallel index processing and progress counters" instead?

+       /* Update the number of indexes completed. */
+       pg_atomic_add_fetch_u32(&(pvs->shared->nindexes_completed), 1);

Remove the dot at the end? (to looks like the surrounding code)

+
+/*
+ * Read pvs->shared->nindexes_completed and update progress.h
+ * with indexes vacuumed so far. This function is called periodically

"Read pvs->shared->nindexes_completed and report the number of indexes vacuumed so far" instead?

+ * Note: This function should be used by the leader process only,

"called" instead of "used"?

                 case WAIT_EVENT_XACT_GROUP_UPDATE:
                         event_name = "XactGroupUpdate";
                         break;
+               case WAIT_EVENT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_FINISH:
+                       event_name = "ParallelVacuumFinish";
+                       break;
                         /* no default case, so that compiler will warn */

It seems to me that the case ordering should follow the alphabetical order (that's how it is done currently without the patch).

+#define REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES ((BlockNumber) (((uint64) 1024 * 1024 * 1024) / BLCKSZ))

It seems to me that "#define REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES ((BlockNumber) (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / BLCKSZ))" would be fine too.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-04T19:24:26Z

Thanks for the review!

Addressed the comments.

> "Increment the indexes completed." (dot at the end) instead?

Used the commenting format being used in other places in this
file with an inclusion of a double-dash. i.,e.
/* Wraparound emergency -- end current index scan */

> It seems to me that "#define REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES ((BlockNumber) (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / BLCKSZ))" would be fine too.

I kept this the same as it matches what we are doing in other places such
as FAILSAFE_EVERY_PAGES

v20 attached.


Regards,

--
Sami Imseih    
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-01-05T08:11:36Z

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:24 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> Addressed the comments.
>
> > "Increment the indexes completed." (dot at the end) instead?
>
> Used the commenting format being used in other places in this
> file with an inclusion of a double-dash. i.,e.
> /* Wraparound emergency -- end current index scan */
>
> > It seems to me that "#define REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES ((BlockNumber) (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / BLCKSZ))" would be fine too.
>
> I kept this the same as it matches what we are doing in other places such
> as FAILSAFE_EVERY_PAGES
>
> v20 attached.

+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       Number of indexes that will be vacuumed. This value will be
+       <literal>0</literal> if there are no indexes to vacuum,
<literal>INDEX_CLEANUP</literal>
+       is set to <literal>OFF</literal>, or vacuum failsafe is triggered.

Similar to above three cases, vacuum can bypass index vacuuming if
there are almost zero TIDs. Should we set indexes_total to 0 in this
case too? If so, I think we can set both indexes_total and
indexes_completed at the beginning of the index vacuuming/cleanup and
reset them at the end. That is, these values are valid only in index
vacuum phase and index cleanup phase. Otherwise, 0.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-06T03:07:11Z

>    Similar to above three cases, vacuum can bypass index vacuuming if
>    there are almost zero TIDs. Should we set indexes_total to 0 in this
>    case too? If so, I think we can set both indexes_total and
>    indexes_completed at the beginning of the index vacuuming/cleanup and
>    reset them at the end. 

Unlike the other 3 cases, in which the vacuum and cleanup are totally skipped,
a cleanup still occurs when the index vacuum is bypassed. From what I can tell,
this is to allow for things like a gin pending list cleanup even if the index
is not vacuumed. There could be other reasons as well.

        if (bypass)
        {
                /*
                 * There are almost zero TIDs.  Behave as if there were precisely
                 * zero: bypass index vacuuming, but do index cleanup.
                 *
                 * We expect that the ongoing VACUUM operation will finish very
                 * quickly, so there is no point in considering speeding up as a
                 * failsafe against wraparound failure. (Index cleanup is expected to
                 * finish very quickly in cases where there were no ambulkdelete()
                 * calls.)
                 */
                vacrel->do_index_vacuuming = false;
        }

So it seems like we should still report the total number of indexes as we are currently
doing in the patch.

With that said, the documentation should make this be more clear.

For indexes_total, the description should be:

       Number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This value will be
        <literal>0</literal> if there are no indexes to vacuum, <literal>INDEX_CLEANUP</literal>
        is set to <literal>OFF</literal>, or vacuum failsafe is triggered.
        See <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-failsafe-age"/>

For indexes_completed, it should be:

       Number of indexes vacuumed in the current vacuum cycle when the
       phase is <literal>vacuuming indexes</liternal>, or the number
       of indexes cleaned up in the <literal>cleaning up indexes<literal>
       phase.


Regards,

--
Sami Imseih    
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-01-06T07:55:54Z

On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 12:07 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    Similar to above three cases, vacuum can bypass index vacuuming if
> >    there are almost zero TIDs. Should we set indexes_total to 0 in this
> >    case too? If so, I think we can set both indexes_total and
> >    indexes_completed at the beginning of the index vacuuming/cleanup and
> >    reset them at the end.
>
> Unlike the other 3 cases, in which the vacuum and cleanup are totally skipped,
> a cleanup still occurs when the index vacuum is bypassed. From what I can tell,
> this is to allow for things like a gin pending list cleanup even if the index
> is not vacuumed.

Right. But since we set indexes_total also at the beginning of index
cleanup (i.e. lazy_cleanup_all_indexes()), can't we still show the
valid value in this case? My point is whether we should show
indexes_total throughout the vacuum execution (even also in not
relevant phases such as heap scanning/vacuum/truncation). For example,
in the analyze progress report, we have child_tables_total and
child_tables_done. child_tables_total is set before the actual work of
sampling rows from child tables, but not the beginning of the analyze.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-07T01:59:40Z

> My point is whether we should show
> indexes_total throughout the vacuum execution (even also in not
>  relevant phases such as heap scanning/vacuum/truncation).

That is a good point. We should only show indexes_total
and indexes_completed only during the relevant phases.

V21 addresses this along with a documentation fix.

indexes_total and indexes_completed can only be a value > 0 while in the
"vacuuming indexes" or "cleaning up indexes" phases of vacuum. 

Indexes_total is set to 0 at the start of the index vacuum cycle or index cleanups
and set back to 0, along with indexes_completed, at the end of the index vacuum
cycle and index cleanups

Also, for the progress updates in vacuumlazy.c that should be done atomically,
I made a change to use pgstat_progress_update_multi_param.

Regards,

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2023-01-10T01:52:47Z

Hi,

On 2023-01-07 01:59:40 +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> --- a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtree.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtree.c
> @@ -998,6 +998,8 @@ btvacuumscan(IndexVacuumInfo *info, IndexBulkDeleteResult *stats,
>  			if (info->report_progress)
>  				pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_SCAN_BLOCKS_DONE,
>  											 scanblkno);
> +			if (info->report_parallel_progress && (scanblkno % REPORT_PARALLEL_VACUUM_EVERY_PAGES) == 0)
> +				parallel_vacuum_update_progress(info->parallel_vacuum_state);
>  		}
>  	}

I still think it's wrong to need multiple pgstat_progress_*() calls within one
scan. If we really need it, it should be abstracted into a helper function
that wrapps all the vacuum progress stuff needed for an index.

> @@ -688,7 +703,13 @@ parallel_vacuum_process_all_indexes(ParallelVacuumState *pvs, int num_index_scan
>  	 */
>  	if (nworkers > 0)
>  	{
> -		/* Wait for all vacuum workers to finish */
> +		/*
> +		 * Wait for all indexes to be vacuumed while
> +		 * updating the parallel vacuum index progress,
> +		 * and then wait for all workers to finish.
> +		 */
> +		parallel_vacuum_wait_to_finish(pvs);
> +
>  		WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(pvs->pcxt);
>  
>  		for (int i = 0; i < pvs->pcxt->nworkers_launched; i++)

I don't think it's a good idea to have two difference routines that wait for
workers to exit.  And certainly not when one of them basically just polls in a
regular interval as parallel_vacuum_wait_to_finish().

I think the problem here is that you're basically trying to work around the
lack of an asynchronous state update mechanism between leader and workers. The
workaround is to add a lot of different places that poll whether there has
been any progress. And you're not doing that by integrating with the existing
machinery for interrupt processing (i.e. CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()), but by
developing a new mechanism.

I think your best bet would be to integrate with HandleParallelMessages().

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-12T14:02:33Z

Thanks for the feedback and I apologize for the delay in response.

>    I think the problem here is that you're basically trying to work around the
>    lack of an asynchronous state update mechanism between leader and workers. The
>    workaround is to add a lot of different places that poll whether there has
>    been any progress. And you're not doing that by integrating with the existing
>    machinery for interrupt processing (i.e. CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()), but by
>    developing a new mechanism.

>    I think your best bet would be to integrate with HandleParallelMessages().

You are correct. I have been trying to work around the async nature
of parallel workers performing the index vacuum. As you have pointed out,
integrating with HandleParallelMessages does appear to be the proper way.
Doing so will also avoid having to do any progress updates in the index AMs.

In the attached patch, the parallel workers send a new type of protocol message
type to the leader called 'P' which signals the leader that it should handle a
progress update. The leader then performs the progress update by
invoking a callback set in the ParallelContext. This is done inside  HandleParallelMessages.
In the index vacuum case, the callback is parallel_vacuum_update_progress. 

The new message does not contain a payload, and it's merely used to
signal the leader that it can invoke a progress update.

Also, If the leader performs the index vacuum, it can call parallel_vacuum_update_progress
directly inside vacuumparallel.c.

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-01-20T07:55:41Z

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 11:02 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback and I apologize for the delay in response.
>
> >    I think the problem here is that you're basically trying to work around the
> >    lack of an asynchronous state update mechanism between leader and workers. The
> >    workaround is to add a lot of different places that poll whether there has
> >    been any progress. And you're not doing that by integrating with the existing
> >    machinery for interrupt processing (i.e. CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()), but by
> >    developing a new mechanism.
>
> >    I think your best bet would be to integrate with HandleParallelMessages().
>
> You are correct. I have been trying to work around the async nature
> of parallel workers performing the index vacuum. As you have pointed out,
> integrating with HandleParallelMessages does appear to be the proper way.
> Doing so will also avoid having to do any progress updates in the index AMs.

Very interesting idea. I need to study the parallel query
infrastructure more to consider potential downside of this idea but it
seems okay as far as I researched so far.

> In the attached patch, the parallel workers send a new type of protocol message
> type to the leader called 'P' which signals the leader that it should handle a
> progress update. The leader then performs the progress update by
> invoking a callback set in the ParallelContext. This is done inside  HandleParallelMessages.
> In the index vacuum case, the callback is parallel_vacuum_update_progress.
>
> The new message does not contain a payload, and it's merely used to
> signal the leader that it can invoke a progress update.

Thank you for updating the patch. Here are some comments for v22 patch:

---
+      <para>
+       Number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This
value will be
+       <literal>0</literal> if the phase is not <literal>vacuuming
indexes</literal>
+       or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal>,
<literal>INDEX_CLEANUP</literal>
+       is set to <literal>OFF</literal>, index vacuum is skipped due to very
+       few dead tuples in the table, or vacuum failsafe is triggered.

I think that if INDEX_CLEANUP is set to OFF or index vacuum is skipped
due to failsafe mode, we enter neither vacuum indexes phase nor
cleanup indexes phase. So probably we can say something like:

Number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This counter only
advances when the phase is vacuuming indexes or cleaning up indexes.

---
-        /* Report that we are now vacuuming indexes */
-        pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE,
-
PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX);
+        /*
+         * Report that we are now vacuuming indexes
+         * and the number of indexes to vacuum.
+         */
+        progress_start_val[0] = PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX;
+        progress_start_val[1] = vacrel->nindexes;
+        pgstat_progress_update_multi_param(2, progress_start_index,
progress_start_val);

According to our code style guideline[1], we limit line lengths so
that the code is readable in an 80-column window. Some comments
updated in this patch seem too short.

---
+                StringInfoData msgbuf;
+
+                pq_beginmessage(&msgbuf, 'P');
+                pq_endmessage(&msgbuf);

I think we can use pq_putmessage() instead.

---
+/* progress callback definition */
+typedef void (*ParallelProgressCallback) (void
*parallel_progress_callback_state);

I think it's better to define "void *arg".

---
+                                /*
+                                 * A Leader process that receives this message
+                                 * must be ready to update progress.
+                                 */
+                                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
+                                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
+
+                                /* Report progress */
+
pcxt->parallel_progress_callback(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);

I think the parallel query infra should not require
parallel_progress_callback_arg to always be set. I think it can be
NULL.

---
+void
+parallel_vacuum_update_progress(void *arg)
+{
+        ParallelVacuumState *pvs = (ParallelVacuumState *)arg;
+
+        Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
+
+        if (pvs)
+                pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
+
   pg_atomic_add_fetch_u32(&(pvs->shared->nindexes_completed), 1));
+}

Since parallel vacuum always sets the arg, I think we don't need to check it.

Regards,

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/source-format.html

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-01-20T14:38:33Z

>    Number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This counter only
>    advances when the phase is vacuuming indexes or cleaning up indexes.

I agree, this reads better.

    ---
    -        /* Report that we are now vacuuming indexes */
    -        pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE,
    -
    PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX);
    +        /*
    +         * Report that we are now vacuuming indexes
    +         * and the number of indexes to vacuum.
    +         */
    +        progress_start_val[0] = PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX;
    +        progress_start_val[1] = vacrel->nindexes;
    +        pgstat_progress_update_multi_param(2, progress_start_index,
    progress_start_val);

>    According to our code style guideline[1], we limit line lengths so
>    that the code is readable in an 80-column window. Some comments
 >   updated in this patch seem too short.

I will correct this.

>    I think it's better to define "void *arg".

Agree

>    ---
>    +                                /*
>    +                                 * A Leader process that receives this message
>    +                                 * must be ready to update progress.
>    +                                 */
>    +                                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
>    +                                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
>    +
>    +                                /* Report progress */
>    +
>    pcxt->parallel_progress_callback(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);

>    I think the parallel query infra should not require
>    parallel_progress_callback_arg to always be set. I think it can be
>    NULL.

This assertion is inside the new 'P' message type handling.
If a leader is consuming this message, they must have a
progress callback set. Right now we only set the callback
in the parallel vacuum case only, so not all leaders will be prepared
to handle this case. 

Would you agree this is needed for safety?

        case 'P':               /* Parallel progress reporting */
            {
                /*
                 * A Leader process that receives this message
                 * must be ready to update progress.
                 */
                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);

    ---
>    +void
>    +parallel_vacuum_update_progress(void *arg)
>    +{
>    +        ParallelVacuumState *pvs = (ParallelVacuumState *)arg;
>    +
>    +        Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
>    +
>    +        if (pvs)
>    +                pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
>    +
>       pg_atomic_add_fetch_u32(&(pvs->shared->nindexes_completed), 1));
>    +}

>    Since parallel vacuum always sets the arg, I think we don't need to check it.

The arg is only set during parallel vacuum. During non-parallel vacuum,
It's NULL. This check can be removed, but I realize now that we do need 
an Assert(pvs). Do you agree?

--

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-02-02T06:33:04Z

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:38 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >    Number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This counter only
> >    advances when the phase is vacuuming indexes or cleaning up indexes.
>
> I agree, this reads better.
>
>     ---
>     -        /* Report that we are now vacuuming indexes */
>     -        pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE,
>     -
>     PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX);
>     +        /*
>     +         * Report that we are now vacuuming indexes
>     +         * and the number of indexes to vacuum.
>     +         */
>     +        progress_start_val[0] = PROGRESS_VACUUM_PHASE_VACUUM_INDEX;
>     +        progress_start_val[1] = vacrel->nindexes;
>     +        pgstat_progress_update_multi_param(2, progress_start_index,
>     progress_start_val);
>
> >    According to our code style guideline[1], we limit line lengths so
> >    that the code is readable in an 80-column window. Some comments
>  >   updated in this patch seem too short.
>
> I will correct this.
>
> >    I think it's better to define "void *arg".
>
> Agree
>
> >    ---
> >    +                                /*
> >    +                                 * A Leader process that receives this message
> >    +                                 * must be ready to update progress.
> >    +                                 */
> >    +                                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
> >    +                                Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
> >    +
> >    +                                /* Report progress */
> >    +
> >    pcxt->parallel_progress_callback(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
>
> >    I think the parallel query infra should not require
> >    parallel_progress_callback_arg to always be set. I think it can be
> >    NULL.
>
> This assertion is inside the new 'P' message type handling.
> If a leader is consuming this message, they must have a
> progress callback set. Right now we only set the callback
> in the parallel vacuum case only, so not all leaders will be prepared
> to handle this case.
>
> Would you agree this is needed for safety?

I think it makes sense that we assume pcxt->parallel_progress_callback
is always not NULL but my point is that in the future one might want
to use this callback without the argument and we should allow it. If
parallel vacuum assumes pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg is not
NULL, I think we should add an assertion in
parallel_vacuum_update_progress(), but not in HandleParallelMessage().

>
>         case 'P':               /* Parallel progress reporting */
>             {
>                 /*
>                  * A Leader process that receives this message
>                  * must be ready to update progress.
>                  */
>                 Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
>                 Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
>
>     ---
> >    +void
> >    +parallel_vacuum_update_progress(void *arg)
> >    +{
> >    +        ParallelVacuumState *pvs = (ParallelVacuumState *)arg;
> >    +
> >    +        Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
> >    +
> >    +        if (pvs)
> >    +                pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
> >    +
> >       pg_atomic_add_fetch_u32(&(pvs->shared->nindexes_completed), 1));
> >    +}
>
> >    Since parallel vacuum always sets the arg, I think we don't need to check it.
>
> The arg is only set during parallel vacuum. During non-parallel vacuum,
> It's NULL. This check can be removed, but I realize now that we do need
> an Assert(pvs). Do you agree?

Agreed to add the assertion in this function.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-02-08T02:03:11Z

Hi,

Thanks for your reply!

I addressed the latest comments in v23.

1/ cleaned up the asserts as discussed.
2/ used pq_putmessage to send the message on index scan completion.

Thanks

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-02-16T08:27:43Z

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 11:03 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> I addressed the latest comments in v23.
>
> 1/ cleaned up the asserts as discussed.
> 2/ used pq_putmessage to send the message on index scan completion.

 Thank you for updating the patch! Here are some comments for v23 patch:

+     <row>
+      <entry><literal>ParallelVacuumFinish</literal></entry>
+      <entry>Waiting for parallel vacuum workers to finish index
vacuum.</entry>
+     </row>

This change is out-of-date.

---
+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_total</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       Number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This
value will be
+       <literal>0</literal> if the phase is not <literal>vacuuming
indexes</literal>
+       or <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal>,
<literal>INDEX_CLEANUP</literal>
+       is set to <literal>OFF</literal>, index vacuum is skipped due to very
+       few dead tuples in the table, or vacuum failsafe is triggered.
+       See <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-failsafe-age"/>
+       for more on vacuum failsafe.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>

This explanation looks redundant: setting INDEX_CLEANUP to OFF
essentially means the vacuum doesn't enter the vacuuming indexes
phase. The same is true for the case of skipping index vacuum and
failsafe mode. How about the following?

Total number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This
number is reported as of the beginning of the vacuuming indexes phase
or the cleaning up indexes phase.

---
+     <row>
+      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+       <structfield>indexes_completed</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+      </para>
+      <para>
+       Number of indexes vacuumed in the current vacuum cycle when the
+       phase is <literal>vacuuming indexes</literal>, or the number
+       of indexes cleaned up during the <literal>cleaning up indexes</literal>
+       phase.
+      </para></entry>
+     </row>

How about simplfyy the description to something like:

Number of indexes processed. This counter only advances when the phase
is vacuuming indexes or cleaning up indexes.

Also, index_processed sounds accurate to me. What do you think?

---
+        pcxt->parallel_progress_callback = NULL;
+        pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg = NULL;

I think these settings are not necessary since the pcxt is palloc0'ed.

---
+void
+parallel_vacuum_update_progress(void *arg)
+{
+        ParallelVacuumState *pvs = (ParallelVacuumState *)arg;
+
+        Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
+        Assert(pvs->pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
+
+        if (pvs)
+                pgstat_progress_update_param(PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_COMPLETED,
+
   pg_atomic_add_fetch_u32(&(pvs->shared->nindexes_completed), 1));
+}

Assert(pvs->pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg) looks wrong to me.
If 'arg' is NULL, a SEGV happens.

I think it's better to update pvs->shared->nindexes_completed by both
leader and worker processes who processed the index.

---
+/* progress callback definition */
+typedef void (*ParallelProgressCallback) (void
*parallel_progress_callback_state);
+
 typedef void (*parallel_worker_main_type) (dsm_segment *seg, shm_toc *toc);

I think it's better to make the function type consistent with the
existing parallel_worker_main_type. How about
parallel_progress_callback_type?

I've attached a patch that incorporates the above comments and has
some suggestions of updating comments etc.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-02-18T02:46:27Z

Thanks for the review!

>    +     <row>
>    +      <entry><literal>ParallelVacuumFinish</literal></entry>
>    +      <entry>Waiting for parallel vacuum workers to finish index
>    vacuum.</entry>
>    +     </row>

>    This change is out-of-date.

That was an oversight. Thanks for catching.

>    Total number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This
>    number is reported as of the beginning of the vacuuming indexes phase
>    or the cleaning up indexes phase.

This is cleaner. I was being unnecessarily verbose in the original description.

>    Number of indexes processed. This counter only advances when the phase
>    is vacuuming indexes or cleaning up indexes.

I agree.

>    Also, index_processed sounds accurate to me. What do you think?

At one point, II used index_processed, but decided to change it. 
"processed" makes sense also. I will use this.

>    I think these settings are not necessary since the pcxt is palloc0'ed.

Good point.

>    Assert(pvs->pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg) looks wrong to me.
>    If 'arg' is NULL, a SEGV happens.

Correct, Assert(pvs) is all that is needed.

>    I think it's better to update pvs->shared->nindexes_completed by both
>    leader and worker processes who processed the index.

No reason for that, since only the leader process can report process to
backend_progress.


>    I think it's better to make the function type consistent with the
>    existing parallel_worker_main_type. How about
>    parallel_progress_callback_type?

Yes, that makes sense.

> I've attached a patch that incorporates the above comments and has
>    some suggestions of updating comments etc.

I reviewed and incorporated these changes, with a slight change. See v24.

-        * Increase and report the number of index. Also, we reset the progress
-        * counters.


+        * Increase and report the number of index scans. Also, we reset the progress
+        * counters.


Thanks

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-02-20T07:14:20Z

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:46 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> >    +     <row>
> >    +      <entry><literal>ParallelVacuumFinish</literal></entry>
> >    +      <entry>Waiting for parallel vacuum workers to finish index
> >    vacuum.</entry>
> >    +     </row>
>
> >    This change is out-of-date.
>
> That was an oversight. Thanks for catching.
>
> >    Total number of indexes that will be vacuumed or cleaned up. This
> >    number is reported as of the beginning of the vacuuming indexes phase
> >    or the cleaning up indexes phase.
>
> This is cleaner. I was being unnecessarily verbose in the original description.
>
> >    Number of indexes processed. This counter only advances when the phase
> >    is vacuuming indexes or cleaning up indexes.
>
> I agree.
>
> >    Also, index_processed sounds accurate to me. What do you think?
>
> At one point, II used index_processed, but decided to change it.
> "processed" makes sense also. I will use this.
>
> >    I think these settings are not necessary since the pcxt is palloc0'ed.
>
> Good point.
>
> >    Assert(pvs->pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg) looks wrong to me.
> >    If 'arg' is NULL, a SEGV happens.
>
> Correct, Assert(pvs) is all that is needed.
>
> >    I think it's better to update pvs->shared->nindexes_completed by both
> >    leader and worker processes who processed the index.
>
> No reason for that, since only the leader process can report process to
> backend_progress.
>
>
> >    I think it's better to make the function type consistent with the
> >    existing parallel_worker_main_type. How about
> >    parallel_progress_callback_type?
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
> > I've attached a patch that incorporates the above comments and has
> >    some suggestions of updating comments etc.
>
> I reviewed and incorporated these changes, with a slight change. See v24.
>
> -        * Increase and report the number of index. Also, we reset the progress
> -        * counters.
>
>
> +        * Increase and report the number of index scans. Also, we reset the progress
> +        * counters.
>
>
> Thanks

Thanks for updating the patch!

 #define PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_INDEX_VACUUMS              4
 #define PROGRESS_VACUUM_MAX_DEAD_TUPLES                        5
 #define PROGRESS_VACUUM_NUM_DEAD_TUPLES                        6
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_TOTAL             7
+#define PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEX_PROCESSED         8

-    s.param7 AS num_dead_tuples
+    s.param7 AS num_dead_tuples,
+    s.param8 AS indexes_total,
+    s.param9 AS indexes_processed

I think PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_TOTAL and
PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_PROCESSED are better for consistency. The rest
looks good to me.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-02-20T16:47:58Z

Thanks!

>  I think PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_TOTAL and
>   PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_PROCESSED are better for consistency. The rest
>   looks good to me.

Took care of that in v25. 

Regards

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-02-24T06:16:10Z

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 1:48 AM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> >  I think PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_TOTAL and
> >   PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_PROCESSED are better for consistency. The rest
> >   looks good to me.
>
> Took care of that in v25.

Thanks! It looks good to me so I've marked it as Ready for Committer.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-04-05T07:47:25Z

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:16:10PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thanks! It looks good to me so I've marked it as Ready for Committer.
 
+       case 'P':               /* Parallel progress reporting */
+           {
+               /* Call the progress reporting callback */
+               Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
+               pcxt->parallel_progress_callback(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
+
+               break;
+           }

The key point of the patch is here.  From what I understand based on
the information of the thread, this is used as a way to make the
progress reporting done by the leader more responsive so as we'd
update the index counters each time the leader is poked at with a 'P'
message by one of its workers, once a worker is done with the parallel
cleanup of one of the indexes.  That's appealing, because this design
is responsive and cheap, while we'd rely on CFIs to make sure that the
leader triggers its callback on a timely basis.  Unfortunately,
sticking a concept of "Parallel progress reporting" is rather
confusing here?  This stuff can be used for much more purposes than
just progress reporting: the leader would execute the callback it has
registered based on the timing given by one or more of its workers,
these willing to push an event on the leader.  Progress reporting is
one application of that to force a refresh and make the information of
the leader accurate.  What about things like a chain of callbacks, for
example?  Could the leader want to register more than one callback and
act on all of them with one single P message?

Another question I have: could the reporting of each individual worker
make sense on its own?  The cleanup of the indexes depends on the
order they are processed, their number, size and AM with their cleanup
strategy, still there may be a point in getting information about how
much work a single worker is doing rather than just have the
aggregated information given to the leader?

Btw, Is an assertion really helpful here?  If
parallel_progress_callback is not set, we'd just crash one line
after.  It seems to me that it could be cleaner to do nothing if a
leader gets a poke message from a worker if there are no callbacks
registered.
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-04-05T08:21:02Z

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:47 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 03:16:10PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thanks! It looks good to me so I've marked it as Ready for Committer.
>
> +       case 'P':               /* Parallel progress reporting */
> +           {
> +               /* Call the progress reporting callback */
> +               Assert(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback);
> +               pcxt->parallel_progress_callback(pcxt->parallel_progress_callback_arg);
> +
> +               break;
> +           }
>
> The key point of the patch is here.  From what I understand based on
> the information of the thread, this is used as a way to make the
> progress reporting done by the leader more responsive so as we'd
> update the index counters each time the leader is poked at with a 'P'
> message by one of its workers, once a worker is done with the parallel
> cleanup of one of the indexes.  That's appealing, because this design
> is responsive and cheap, while we'd rely on CFIs to make sure that the
> leader triggers its callback on a timely basis.  Unfortunately,
> sticking a concept of "Parallel progress reporting" is rather
> confusing here?  This stuff can be used for much more purposes than
> just progress reporting: the leader would execute the callback it has
> registered based on the timing given by one or more of its workers,
> these willing to push an event on the leader.  Progress reporting is
> one application of that to force a refresh and make the information of
> the leader accurate.  What about things like a chain of callbacks, for
> example?  Could the leader want to register more than one callback and
> act on all of them with one single P message?

That seems a valid argument. I was thinking that such an asynchronous
state update mechanism would be a good infrastructure for progress
reporting of parallel operations. It might be worth considering to use
it in more general usage but since the current implementation is
minimal can we extend it in the future when we need it for other use
cases?

>
> Another question I have: could the reporting of each individual worker
> make sense on its own?  The cleanup of the indexes depends on the
> order they are processed, their number, size and AM with their cleanup
> strategy, still there may be a point in getting information about how
> much work a single worker is doing rather than just have the
> aggregated information given to the leader?

It would also be useful information for users but I don't think it can
alternate the aggregated information. The aggregated information can
answer the question from the user like "how many indexes to vacuum are
remaining?", which helps estimate the remaining time to complete.

>
> Btw, Is an assertion really helpful here?  If
> parallel_progress_callback is not set, we'd just crash one line
> after.  It seems to me that it could be cleaner to do nothing if a
> leader gets a poke message from a worker if there are no callbacks
> registered.

Agreed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-04-05T14:31:54Z

> > The key point of the patch is here. From what I understand based on
> > the information of the thread, this is used as a way to make the
> progress reporting done by the leader more responsive so as we'd
> > update the index counters each time the leader is poked at with a 'P'
> > message by one of its workers, once a worker is done with the parallel
> > cleanup of one of the indexes. That's appealing, because this design
> > is responsive and cheap, while we'd rely on CFIs to make sure that the
> > leader triggers its callback on a timely basis. Unfortunately,
> > sticking a concept of "Parallel progress reporting" is rather
> > confusing here? This stuff can be used for much more purposes than
> > just progress reporting: the leader would execute the callback it has
> > registered based on the timing given by one or more of its workers,
> > these willing to push an event on the leader. Progress reporting is
> > one application of that to force a refresh and make the information of
> > the leader accurate. What about things like a chain of callbacks, for
> > example? Could the leader want to register more than one callback and
> > act on all of them with one single P message?


> That seems a valid argument. I was thinking that such an asynchronous
> state update mechanism would be a good infrastructure for progress
> reporting of parallel operations. It might be worth considering to use
> it in more general usage but since the current implementation is
> minimal can we extend it in the future when we need it for other use
> cases?

I don't think we should delay this patch to design a more general
infrastructure. I agree this can be handled by a future requirement.


> >
> > Another question I have: could the reporting of each individual worker
> > make sense on its own? The cleanup of the indexes depends on the
> > order they are processed, their number, size and AM with their cleanup
> > strategy, still there may be a point in getting information about how
> > much work a single worker is doing rather than just have the
> > aggregated information given to the leader?


> It would also be useful information for users but I don't think it can
> alternate the aggregated information. The aggregated information can
> answer the question from the user like "how many indexes to vacuum are
> remaining?", which helps estimate the remaining time to complete.

The original intention of the thread was to expose stats for both 
aggregate (leader level) and individual index progress. Both the aggregate
and individual indexes information have benefit as mentioned by Swada-San.

For the individual index progress, a suggested patch was suggested earlier in
the thread, v1-0001-Function-to-return-currently-vacuumed-or-cleaned-ind.patch.

However, since this particular thread has focused mainly on the aggregated stats work,
my thoughts have been to start a new thread for the individual index progress
once this gets committed.


> > Btw, Is an assertion really helpful here? If
> > parallel_progress_callback is not set, we'd just crash one line
> > after. It seems to me that it could be cleaner to do nothing if a
> > leader gets a poke message from a worker if there are no callbacks
> > registered.

> Agreed.

I removed the assert and added an if condition instead.

See the attached v26 please.

Regards,

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-04-06T03:28:04Z

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 02:31:54PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> That seems a valid argument. I was thinking that such an asynchronous
>> state update mechanism would be a good infrastructure for progress
>> reporting of parallel operations. It might be worth considering to use
>> it in more general usage but since the current implementation is
>> minimal can we extend it in the future when we need it for other use
>> cases?
> 
> I don't think we should delay this patch to design a more general
> infrastructure. I agree this can be handled by a future requirement.

Not so sure to agree on that.  As the patch stands, we have a rather
generally-purposed new message type and facility (callback trigger
poke from workers to their leader) used for a not-so-general purpose,
while being documented under this not-so-general purpose, which is
progress reporting.  I agree that relying on pqmq.c to force the
leader to be more sensible to refreshes is sensible, because it is
cheap, but the interface seems kind of misplaced to me.  As one thing,
for example, it introduces a dependency to parallel.h to do progress
reporting without touching at backend_progress.h.  Is a callback
approach combined with a counter in shared memory the best thing there
could be?  Could it be worth thinking about a different design where
the value incremented and the parameters of
pgstat_progress_update_param() are passed through the 'P' message
instead?  It strikes me that gathering data in the leader from a poke
of the workers is something that could be useful in so much more areas
than just the parallel index operations done in a vacuum because we do
more and more things in parallel these days, so the API interface
ought to have some attention.

As some say, the introduction of a new message type in pqmq.c would be
basically a one-way door, because we'd have to maintain it in a stable
branch.  I would not take that lightly.  One idea of interface that
could be used is an extra set of APIs for workers to do progress
reporting, part of backend_progress.h, where we use a pqmq message
type in a centralized location, say something like a
pgstat_progress_parallel_incr_param().

About the callback interface, we may also want to be more careful
about more things, like the handling of callback chains, or even
unregistrations of callbacks?  There could be much more uses to that
than just progress reporting, though this comes to a balance of what
the leader needs to do before the workers are able to poke at it on a
periodic basis to make the refresh of the aggregated progress
reporting data more verbose.  There is also an argument where we could
have each worker report their progress independently of the leader?
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-04-06T15:14:20Z

> As one thing,
> for example, it introduces a dependency to parallel.h to do progress
> reporting without touching at backend_progress.h.  

Containing the logic in backend_progress.h is a reasonable point
from a maintenance standpoint.

We can create a new function in backend_progress.h called 
pgstat_progress_update_leader which is called from
vacuumparallel.c. 

pgstat_progress_update_leader can then call pq_putmessage('P', NULL, 0)

> Is a callback
> approach combined with a counter in shared memory the best thing there
> could be?  

It seems to be the best way.

The shared memory, ParallelVacuumState, is already tracking the
counters for the Parallel Vacuum.

Also, the callback in ParallelContext is the only way I can see
to let the 'P' message know what to do for updating progress
to the leader.


> Could it be worth thinking about a different design where
> the value incremented and the parameters of
> pgstat_progress_update_param() are passed through the 'P' message
> instead?

I am not sure how this is different than the approach suggested.
In the current design, the 'P' message is used to pass the
ParallelvacuumState to parallel_vacuum_update_progress which then
calls pgstat_progress_update_param.


> It strikes me that gathering data in the leader from a poke
> of the workers is something that could be useful in so much more areas
> than just the parallel index operations done in a vacuum because we do
> more and more things in parallel these days, so the API interface
> ought to have some attention.

We may need an interface that does more than progress
reporting, but I am not sure what those use cases are at
this point, besides progress reporting.


> There is also an argument where we could
> have each worker report their progress independently of the leader?

In this case, we don't need ParallelContext at all or to go through the
'P' message.


--
Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-04-07T10:15:24Z

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:14:20PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> Could it be worth thinking about a different design where
>> the value incremented and the parameters of
>> pgstat_progress_update_param() are passed through the 'P' message
>> instead?
> 
> I am not sure how this is different than the approach suggested.
> In the current design, the 'P' message is used to pass the
> ParallelvacuumState to parallel_vacuum_update_progress which then
> calls pgstat_progress_update_param.

The arguments of pgstat_progress_update_param() would be given by the
worker directly as components of the 'P' message.  It seems to me that
this approach would have the simplicity to not require the setup of a
shmem area for the extra counters, and there would be no need for a
callback.  Hence, the only thing the code paths of workers would need
to do is to call this routine, then the leaders would increment their
progress when they see a CFI to process the 'P' message.  Also, I
guess that we would only need an interface in backend_progress.c to
increment counters, like pgstat_progress_incr_param(), but usable by
workers.  Like a pgstat_progress_worker_incr_param()?
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2023-04-07T19:01:17Z

Hi,

On 2023-04-06 12:28:04 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As some say, the introduction of a new message type in pqmq.c would be
> basically a one-way door, because we'd have to maintain it in a stable
> branch.

Why would it mean that? Parallel workers are updated together with the leader,
so there's no compatibility issue?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-04-07T19:27:17Z

> The arguments of pgstat_progress_update_param() would be given by the
> worker directly as components of the 'P' message. It seems to me that
> this approach would have the simplicity to not require the setup of a
> shmem area for the extra counters, and there would be no need for a
> callback. Hence, the only thing the code paths of workers would need
> to do is to call this routine, then the leaders would increment their
> progress when they see a CFI to process the 'P' message. Also, I
> guess that we would only need an interface in backend_progress.c to
> increment counters, like pgstat_progress_incr_param(), but usable by
> workers. Like a pgstat_progress_worker_incr_param()?

So, here is what I think should be workable to give a generic
progress interface.

pgstat_progress_parallel_incr_param will be a new API that
can be called by either worker of leader from any parallel
code path that chooses to increment a progress index. 

If called by a worker, it will send a 'P' message to the front end
passing both the progress index, i.e. PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_PROCESSED
And the value to increment by, i.e. 1 for index vacuum progress.

With that, the additional shared memory counters in ParallelVacuumState
are not needed, and the poke of the worker to the leader goes directly
through a generic backend_progress API.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-04-09T22:32:07Z

On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 07:27:17PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> If called by a worker, it will send a 'P' message to the front end
> passing both the progress index, i.e. PROGRESS_VACUUM_INDEXES_PROCESSED
> And the value to increment by, i.e. 1 for index vacuum progress.
> 
> With that, the additional shared memory counters in ParallelVacuumState
> are not needed, and the poke of the worker to the leader goes directly
> through a generic backend_progress API.

Thanks for the new version.  This has unfortunately not been able to
make the cut for v16, but let's see it done at the beginning of the
v17 cycle.

+void
+pgstat_progress_parallel_incr_param(int index, int64 incr)
+{
+   /*
+    * Parallel workers notify a leader through a 'P'
+    * protocol message to update progress, passing the
+    * progress index and increment value. Leaders can
+    * just call pgstat_progress_incr_param directly.
+    */
+   if (IsParallelWorker())
+   {
+       static StringInfoData progress_message;
+
+       initStringInfo(&progress_message);
+
+       pq_beginmessage(&progress_message, 'P');
+       pq_sendint32(&progress_message, index);
+       pq_sendint64(&progress_message, incr);
+       pq_endmessage(&progress_message);
+   }
+   else
+       pgstat_progress_incr_param(index, incr);
+}

I see.  You need to handle both the leader and worker case because
parallel_vacuum_process_one_index() can be called by either of them.

+       case 'P':               /* Parallel progress reporting */

Perhaps this comment should say that this is only about incremental
progress reporting, for the moment.

+    * Increase and report the number of index scans. Also, we reset the progress
+    * counters.

The counters reset are the two index counts, perhaps this comment
should mention this fact.

+               /* update progress */
+               int index = pq_getmsgint(msg, 4);
+               int incr = pq_getmsgint(msg, 1);
[...]
+       pq_beginmessage(&progress_message, 'P');
+       pq_sendint32(&progress_message, index);
+       pq_sendint64(&progress_message, incr);
+       pq_endmessage(&progress_message);

It seems to me that the receiver side is missing one pq_getmsgend()?
incr is defined and sent as an int64 on the sender side, hence the
receiver should use pq_getmsgint64(), no?  pq_getmsgint(msg, 1) means
to receive only one byte, see pqformat.c.  And the order is reversed?

There may be a case in the future about making 'P' more complicated
with more arguments, but what you have here should be sufficient for
your use-case.  Were there plans to increment more data for some
different and/or new progress indexes in the VACUUM path, by the way?
Most of that looked a bit tricky to me as this was AM-dependent, but I
may have missed something.
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-04-09T23:14:18Z

On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 12:01:17PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why would it mean that? Parallel workers are updated together with the leader,
> so there's no compatibility issue?

My point is that the callback system would still need to be maintained
in a stable branch, and, while useful, it could be used for much more
than it is originally written.  I guess that this could be used in
custom nodes with their own custom parallel nodes.
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-04-10T19:20:42Z

> + case 'P': /* Parallel progress reporting */

I kept this comment as-is but inside case code block I added 
more comments. This is to avoid cluttering up the one-liner comment.

> + * Increase and report the number of index scans. Also, we reset the progress
> + * counters.


> The counters reset are the two index counts, perhaps this comment
> should mention this fact.

Yes, since we are using the multi_param API here, it makes sense to 
mention the progress fields being reset in the comments.


+ /* update progress */
+ int index = pq_getmsgint(msg, 4);
+ int incr = pq_getmsgint(msg, 1);
[...]
+ pq_beginmessage(&progress_message, 'P');
+ pq_sendint32(&progress_message, index);
+ pq_sendint64(&progress_message, incr);
+ pq_endmessage(&progress_message);


> It seems to me that the receiver side is missing one pq_getmsgend()?
Yes. I added this.

> incr is defined and sent as an int64 on the sender side, hence the
> receiver should use pq_getmsgint64(), no? pq_getmsgint(msg, 1) means
> to receive only one byte, see pqformat.c. 

Ah correct, incr is an int64 so what we need is.

int64 incr = pq_getmsgint64(msg);

I also added the pq_getmsgend call.


> And the order is reversed?

I don't think so. The index then incr are sent and they are
back in the same order. Testing the patch shows the value
increments correctly.


See v28 addressing the comments.

Regards,

Sami Imseih 
AWS (Amazon Web Services)

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2023-04-10T22:34:17Z

Hi,

On 2023-04-10 08:14:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 12:01:17PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Why would it mean that? Parallel workers are updated together with the leader,
> > so there's no compatibility issue?
> 
> My point is that the callback system would still need to be maintained
> in a stable branch, and, while useful, it could be used for much more
> than it is originally written.  I guess that this could be used in
> custom nodes with their own custom parallel nodes.

Hm, I'm somewhat doubtful that that's something we should encourage. And
doubtful we'd get it right without a concrete use case at hand to verify the
design.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-04-12T04:46:41Z

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 07:20:42PM +0000, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> See v28 addressing the comments.

This should be OK (also checked the code paths where the reports are
added).  Note that the patch needed a few adjustments for its
indentation.
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Sami Imseih <simseih@amazon.com> — 2023-04-12T12:22:34Z

> This should be OK (also checked the code paths where the reports are
> added). Note that the patch needed a few adjustments for its
> indentation.

Thanks for the formatting corrections! This looks good to me.

--
Sami

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-07-06T02:07:14Z

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 9:22 PM Imseih (AWS), Sami <simseih@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> > This should be OK (also checked the code paths where the reports are
> > added). Note that the patch needed a few adjustments for its
> > indentation.
>
> Thanks for the formatting corrections! This looks good to me.

Thank you for updating the patch. It looks good to me too. I've
updated the commit message.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-07-06T02:14:51Z

On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 11:07:14AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for updating the patch. It looks good to me too. I've
> updated the commit message.

Thanks.  I was planning to review this patch today and/or tomorrow now
that my stack of things to do is getting slightly lower (registered my
name as committer as well a few weeks ago to not format).  

One thing I was planning to do is to move the new message processing
API for the incrementational updates in its own commit for clarity, as
that's a separate concept than the actual feature, useful on its own.

Anyway, would you prefer taking care of it?
--
Michael

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-07-06T05:28:57Z

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:15 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 11:07:14AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thank you for updating the patch. It looks good to me too. I've
> > updated the commit message.
>
> Thanks.  I was planning to review this patch today and/or tomorrow now
> that my stack of things to do is getting slightly lower (registered my
> name as committer as well a few weeks ago to not format).
>
> One thing I was planning to do is to move the new message processing
> API for the incrementational updates in its own commit for clarity, as
> that's a separate concept than the actual feature, useful on its own.

+1. I had the same idea. Please find the attached patches.

> Anyway, would you prefer taking care of it?

I can take care of it if you're okay.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> — 2023-07-11T05:54:26Z

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 2:28 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:15 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 11:07:14AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Thank you for updating the patch. It looks good to me too. I've
> > > updated the commit message.
> >
> > Thanks.  I was planning to review this patch today and/or tomorrow now
> > that my stack of things to do is getting slightly lower (registered my
> > name as committer as well a few weeks ago to not format).
> >
> > One thing I was planning to do is to move the new message processing
> > API for the incrementational updates in its own commit for clarity, as
> > that's a separate concept than the actual feature, useful on its own.
>
> +1. I had the same idea. Please find the attached patches.
>
> > Anyway, would you prefer taking care of it?
>
> I can take care of it if you're okay.
>

Pushed.

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com