Re: per backend I/O statistics
Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-01-15T08:30:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:03:54AM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 at 07:22, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > Fixed that, bumped the two version counters, and done.
>
> I encountered a problem while trying to add WAL stats to pg_stat_io
> and I wanted to hear your thoughts.
>
> Right now, pgstat_prep_backend_pending() is called in both
> pgstat_count_io_op() and pgstat_count_io_op_time() to create a local
> PgStat_BackendPending entry. In that process,
> pgstat_prep_pending_entry() -> MemoryContextAllocZero() is called. The
> problem is that MemoryContextAllocZero() can not be called in the
> critical sections.
>
> For example, here is what happens in the walsender backend:
>
> '''
> ... ->
> exec_replication_command() ->
> SendBaseBackup() ->
> ... ->
> XLogInsertRecord() ->
> START_CRIT_SECTION() /* Now we are in the critical section */ ->
> ... ->
> XLogWrite() ->
> pgstat_count_io_op_time() for the pg_pwrite() IO ->
> pgstat_prep_backend_pending() ->
> pgstat_prep_pending_entry() ->
> MemoryContextAllocZero() ->
> Failed at Assert("CritSectionCount == 0 || (context)->allowInCritSection")
> '''
>
> With this commit it may not be possible to count IOs in the critical
> sections. I think the problem happens only if the local
> PgStat_BackendPending entry is being created for the first time for
> this backend in the critical section.
Yeah, I encountered the exact same thing and mentioned it in [1] (see R1.).
In [1] I did propose to use a new PendingBackendWalStats variable to "bypass" the
pgstat_prep_backend_pending() usage.
Michael mentioned in [2] that is not really consistent with the rest (what I
agree with) and that "we should rethink a bit the way pending entries are
retrieved". I did not think about it yet but that might be the way to
go, thoughts?
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z3zqc4o09dM/Ezyz%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
[2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z4dRlNuhSQ3hPPv2%40paquier.xyz
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
Rework handling of pending data for backend statistics
- 4feba03d8b92 18.0 landed
-
Rename some pgstats callbacks related to flush of entries
- 28de66cee5f4 18.0 landed
-
Relax regression test for fsync check of backend-level stats
- 546371599e76 18.0 landed
-
Add backend-level statistics to pgstats
- 9aea73fc61d4 18.0 landed
-
Extract logic filling pg_stat_get_io()'s tuplestore into its own routine
- ff7c40d7fd6a 18.0 landed
-
Tweak some comments related to variable-numbered stats in pgstat.c
- fee2b3ea2ecd 18.0 landed