Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>

Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2020-04-08T07:04:09Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Change the display of WAL usage statistics in Explain.
- 69bfaf2e1de4 13.0 landed
Cosmetic fixups for WAL usage work.
- ef08ca113fe3 13.0 landed
Allow parallel create index to accumulate buffer usage stats.
- 5c71362174eb 13.0 landed
- f179e9f01b65 11.8 landed
- 13823ad3b012 12.3 landed
Allow autovacuum to log WAL usage statistics.
- b7ce6de93b59 13.0 landed
Add the option to report WAL usage in EXPLAIN and auto_explain.
- 33e05f89c53e 13.0 landed
Allow pg_stat_statements to track WAL usage statistics.
- 6b466bf5f2be 13.0 landed
Add infrastructure to track WAL usage.
- df3b181499b4 13.0 landed
Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output, take two.
- ce77abe63cfc 13.0 cited
Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output.
- ed7a5095716e 13.0 cited
Allow parallel vacuum to accumulate buffer usage.
- 3a5e22138a8d 13.0 landed
Allow pg_stat_statements to track planning statistics.
- 17e03282241c 13.0 cited

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the investigation.  I don't see we can do anything special
> > about this.  In an ideal world, this should be done once and not for
> > each worker but I guess it doesn't matter too much.  I am not sure if
> > it is worth adding a comment for this, what do you think?
> >
>
> I agree with you. If the differences were considerably large probably
> we would do something but I think we don't need to anything at this
> time.
>

Fair enough, can you once check this in back-branches as this needs to
be backpatched?  I will do that once by myself as well.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com