On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:14 PM Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com>
wrote:
> On 2021-03-03 20:27, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> > On 2021-03-03 16:30, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On 2021/03/03 14:33, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> >>> On 2021-02-24 16:14, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>> On 2021/02/15 11:59, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> >>>>> On 2021-02-10 00:51, David G. Johnston wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:45 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> >>>>>> <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I pgindented the patches.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ... <function>XLogWrite</function>, which is invoked during an
> >>>>>> <function>XLogFlush</function> request (see ...). This is also
> >>>>>> incremented by the WAL receiver during replication.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ("which normally called" should be "which is normally called" or
> >>>>>> "which normally is called" if you want to keep true to the
> >>>>>> original)
> >>>>>> You missed the adding the space before an opening parenthesis here
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> elsewhere (probably copy-paste)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> is ether -> is either
> >>>>>> "This parameter is off by default as it will repeatedly query the
> >>>>>> operating system..."
> >>>>>> ", because" -> "as"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, I fixed them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wal_write_time and the sync items also need the note: "This is
> >>>>>> also
> >>>>>> incremented by the WAL receiver during replication."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I skipped changing it since I separated the stats for the WAL
> >>>>> receiver
> >>>>> in pg_stat_wal_receiver.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "The number of times it happened..." -> " (the tally of this event
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> reported in wal_buffers_full in....) This is undesirable because
> >>>>>> ..."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, I fixed it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I notice that the patch for WAL receiver doesn't require
> >>>>>> explicitly
> >>>>>> computing the sync statistics but does require computing the write
> >>>>>> statistics. This is because of the presence of issue_xlog_fsync
> >>>>>> but
> >>>>>> absence of an equivalent pg_xlog_pwrite. Additionally, I observe
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> the XLogWrite code path calls pgstat_report_wait_*() while the WAL
> >>>>>> receiver path does not. It seems technically straight-forward to
> >>>>>> refactor here to avoid the almost-duplicated logic in the two
> >>>>>> places,
> >>>>>> though I suspect there may be a trade-off for not adding another
> >>>>>> function call to the stack given the importance of WAL processing
> >>>>>> (though that seems marginalized compared to the cost of actually
> >>>>>> writing the WAL). Or, as Fujii noted, go the other way and don't
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>> any shared code between the two but instead implement the WAL
> >>>>>> receiver
> >>>>>> one to use pg_stat_wal_receiver instead. In either case, this
> >>>>>> half-and-half implementation seems undesirable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, as Fujii-san mentioned, I separated the WAL receiver stats.
> >>>>> (v10-0002-Makes-the-wal-receiver-report-WAL-statistics.patch)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for updating the patches!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I added the infrastructure code to communicate the WAL receiver
> >>>>> stats messages between the WAL receiver and the stats collector,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> the stats for WAL receiver is counted in pg_stat_wal_receiver.
> >>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> On second thought, this idea seems not good. Because those stats are
> >>>> collected between multiple walreceivers, but other values in
> >>>> pg_stat_wal_receiver is only related to the walreceiver process
> >>>> running
> >>>> at that moment. IOW, it seems strange that some values show dynamic
> >>>> stats and the others show collected stats, even though they are in
> >>>> the same view pg_stat_wal_receiver. Thought?
> >>>
> >>> OK, I fixed it.
> >>> The stats collected in the WAL receiver is exposed in pg_stat_wal
> >>> view in v11 patch.
> >>
> >> Thanks for updating the patches! I'm now reading 001 patch.
> >>
> >> + /* Check whether the WAL file was synced to disk right now */
> >> + if (enableFsync &&
> >> + (sync_method == SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC ||
> >> + sync_method == SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC_WRITETHROUGH ||
> >> + sync_method == SYNC_METHOD_FDATASYNC))
> >> + {
> >>
> >> Isn't it better to make issue_xlog_fsync() return immediately
> >> if enableFsync is off, sync_method is open_sync or open_data_sync,
> >> to simplify the code more?
> >
> > Thanks for the comments.
> > I added the above code in v12 patch.
> >
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * Send WAL statistics only if WalWriterDelay has elapsed
> to
> >> minimize
> >> + * the overhead in WAL-writing.
> >> + */
> >> + if (rc & WL_TIMEOUT)
> >> + pgstat_send_wal();
> >>
> >> On second thought, this change means that it always takes
> >> wal_writer_delay
> >> before walwriter's WAL stats is sent after XLogBackgroundFlush() is
> >> called.
> >> For example, if wal_writer_delay is set to several seconds, some
> >> values in
> >> pg_stat_wal would be not up-to-date meaninglessly for those seconds.
> >> So I'm thinking to withdraw my previous comment and it's ok to send
> >> the stats every after XLogBackgroundFlush() is called. Thought?
> >
> > Thanks, I didn't notice that.
> >
> > Although PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL is 500msec, wal_writer_delay's
> > default value is 200msec and it may be set shorter time.
> >
> > Why don't to make another way to check the timestamp?
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Don't send a message unless it's been at least
> > PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL
> > + * msec since we last sent one
> > + */
> > + now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> > + if (TimestampDifferenceExceeds(last_report, now,
> > PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL))
> > + {
> > + pgstat_send_wal();
> > + last_report = now;
> > + }
> > +
> >
> > Although I worried that it's better to add the check code in
> > pgstat_send_wal(),
> > I didn't do so because to avoid to double check PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL.
> > pgstat_send_wal() is invoked pg_report_stat() and it already checks the
> > PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL.
>
> I forgot to remove an unused variable.
> The attached v13 patch is fixed.
>
> Regards
> --
> Masahiro Ikeda
> NTT DATA CORPORATION
This patch set no longer applies
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_32_2859.log
Can we get a rebase?
I am marking the patch "Waiting on Author"
--
Ibrar Ahmed
