On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:03 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > > > I see some basic problems with the patch. The way it tries to compute > > > > WAL usage for parallel stuff doesn't seem right to me. Can you share > > > > or point me to any test done where we have computed WAL for parallel > > > > operations like Parallel Vacuum or Parallel Create Index? > > > > > > Ah, that's indeed a good point and AFAICT WAL records from parallel > > > utility > > > workers won't be accounted for. That being said, I think that an argument > > > could be made that proper infrastructure should have been added in the > > > original > > > parallel utility patches, as pg_stat_statement is already broken wrt. > > > buffer > > > usage in parallel utility, unless I'm missing something. > > > > Just to be sure I did a quick test with pg_stat_statements behavior using > > parallel/non-parallel CREATE INDEX and VACUUM, and unsurprisingly buffer > > usage > > doesn't reflect parallel workers' activity. > > > > I added an open for that, and adding Robert in Cc as 9da0cc352 is the first > > commit adding parallel maintenance. > > I believe this is resolved for parallel vacuum in master and parallel create > index back to PG11. > > I marked this as closed. > https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=PostgreSQL_13_Open_Items&diff=34802&oldid=34781 >
Okay, thanks. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
