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

Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>

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

Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2020-04-01T12:25:53Z

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 1, 2020 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:51 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. I've attached the updated patch.
> > >
> > > Thank you for testing, Dilip!
> >
> > Thanks!  One hunk is failing on the latest head.  And, I have rebased
> > the patch for my testing so posting the same.  I have done some more
> > testing to test multi-pass vacuum.
> >
>
> The patch looks good to me.  I have done a few minor modifications (a)
> moved the declaration of variable closer to where it is used, (b)
> changed a comment, (c) ran pgindent.  I have also done some additional
> testing with more number of indexes and found that vacuum and parallel
> vacuum used the same number of total_read_blks and that is what is
> expected here.
>
> Let me know what you think of the attached?

The patch looks fine to me.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com