Re: Show WAL write and fsync stats in pg_stat_io

Hi,

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 07:23, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 05:13:39PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 at 16:59, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 at 03:52, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >> We use PendingWalStats.wal_[ write | sync ]_time only to show timings
> >> on the pg_stat_wal view, right? And now these pg_stat_wal.wal_[ write
> >> | sync ]_time datas are fetched from the pg_stat_io view when the
> >> track_wal_io_timing is on. So, I think it is correct to remove these.
>
> As you say, removing the counters in the second patch does not matter
> as if you are going to combine them and..
>
> >>
> >> I made a mistake while splitting the patches. The places where
> >> 'PendingWalStats.wal_[ write | sync ]_time are incremented (the code
> >> piece you shared)' are removed in 0002 (0001 now), but they should be
> >> removed in 0003 (0002 now) instead. This is corrected in v11.
>
> My issue was in the first patch that should not have removed them.  My
> apologies for the confusion, I should have pointed out that this was
> likely an incorrect rebase and/or patch split.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying!

> > If we agree with removing PendingWalStats.wal_[ write | sync ]_time
> > variables, then it would make sense to remove PgStat_PendingWalStats
> > struct completely. We have that struct because [1] it is cheap to
> > store PendingWalStats.wal_[ write | sync ]_time as instr_time instead
> > of PgStat_Counter.
> >
> > [1] ca7b3c4c00
>
> I agree that some simplification would be nice because it also makes
> Bertrand's patch around [1] to not have some special handling with
> PgStat_PendingWalStats without us losing monitoring capabilities, I
> hope.  So maximizing simplifications before integrating more
> capabilities should make the whole implementation effort easier.
>
> What you doing in 0001 is a first good step towards this goal, as this
> also plugs in a few things for backend statistics with the calls to
> pgstat_count_io_op[_time]().

I agree. Do you think that we need to do this simplification in this
thread or does it need its own thread?

>
> +       /* Report pending statistics to the cumulative stats system */
> +       pgstat_flush_io(false);
>
> This has been discussed previously under a pgstat_report_wal() call.
> Why do you need this specific call?  Perhaps this should be documented
> as a comment?

Without this change, stats in the startup process would only get
reported during shutdown of the startup process, so I added this but I
was wrong. It was already fixed [1], so yes; we do not need it now.
This is removed in v12.

>
> +   if (io_object == IOOBJECT_WAL)
> +       return track_wal_io_timing
>
> Hmm.  Andres has commented in the past that we want pg_stat_io to
> server as a central place for all the I/O statistics.  Thinking more
> about that, I am not really convinced that we actually need to make
> this area of the code in pgstat_io.c rely on two GUCs.  How about
> simplifying things so as we just rely on track_io_timing for
> everything, without creating a strange dependency on the IOObject with
> more routines like pgstat_should_track_io_time()?  I'd really want
> less of these GUCs, not more of them with cross-dependencies depending
> on the stats kinds we are dealing with.  If we replace the timings
> from pg_stat_wal with the ones in pg_stat_io, we should be in a good
> position to remove track_wal_io_timing entirely, as well.  This has
> the merit of making your patch a lot simpler, meaning extra bonus
> points.

I agree with you but it was discussed before in this thread [2]. It
was decided to use both track_wal_io_timing and track_io_timing
because of the overhead that track_wal_io_timing creates but we can
still re-discuss it. Do you think that this discussion needs its own
thread?

If we continue to discuss it in this thread, I am in favor of removing
track_wal_io_timing and using track_io_timing for all types of I/Os.
Like you said, this cross-dependency makes things more complex than
they used to be. Downside of removing track_wal_io_timing is affecting
people who:

1- Want to track timings of only WAL I/Os.
2- Want to track timings of all IOs except WAL I/Os.

I think the first group is more important than the second because
track_io_timing already creates overhead.

One additional thing is that I think track_io_timing is a general
word. When it exists, I do not expect there to be another GUC like
track_wal_io_timing to track WAL I/Os' timings.

[1] e3cb1a586c
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZUmuJ7P8THHz03nx%40paquier.xyz

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft