On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:58 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > >>> Thanks for the patch. Do we also need to do the change in > >>> HandleMainLoopInterrupts, HandleCheckpointerInterrupts, > >>> HandlePgArchInterrupts, HandleWalWriterInterrupts as we don't call > >>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() there? > > > >> Yeah, that's still some information that the user asked for. Looking > >> at the things that have a PGPROC entry, should we worry about the main > >> loop of the logical replication launcher? > > > > ・Now, the target of “pg_log_backend_memory_contexts()” is “autovacuum > > launcher” and “logical replication launcher”. I observed that the delay > > occurred only in “autovacuum launcher” not in “logical replication > > launcher”. > > ・”autovacuum launcher” used “HandleAutoVacLauncherInterrupts()” ( not > > including “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()” ) instead of > > “ProcessInterrupts() ( including “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()” ). > > “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()” will not be executed until the next > > “ProcessInterrupts()” is executed. So, I added > > “ProcessLogMemoryContextInterrupt()”. > > ・”logical replication launcher” uses only “ProcessInterrupts()”. So, We > > don’t have to fix it. > > Yes.
+1 to keep this thread for fixing the pg_log_backend_memory_contexts() issue for the autovacuum launcher. And the patch "fix_log_output_delay" looks good to me. I think we can add a CF entry. > >> IMHO, we can support all the processes which return a PGPROC entry by > >> both BackendPidGetProc and AuxiliaryPidGetProc where the > >> AuxiliaryPidGetProc would cover the following processes. I'm not sure > >> one is interested in the memory context info of auxiliary processes. > > I like this idea because it seems helpful at least for debug purpose. > > > > ・The purpose of this patch is to solve the delay problem, so I would like > > another patch to deal with “ BackendPidGetProc” and “AuxiliaryPidGetProc”. > > +1 to improve those things separately. I started a separate thread [1], and I have a couple of open points there. Please feel free to provide your thoughts in [1]. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALj2ACU1nBzpacOK2q%3Da65S_4%2BOaz_rLTsU1Ri0gf7YUmnmhfQ%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
