Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 01:47:48PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:31:03AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: >> I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether we should >> distinguish DEALLOCATE ALL from DEALLOCATE (call it +0.5), but > > The difference look

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-18 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:31:03AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether we should > distinguish DEALLOCATE ALL from DEALLOCATE (call it +0.5), but The difference looks important to me, especially for monitoring. And pgbouncer may also use

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-18 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 08:49:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hmm. One issue with the patch is that we finish by considering >> DEALLOCATE ALL and DEALLOCATE $1 as the same things, compiling the >> same query IDs. The difference is made in the Nodes by assigning

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 08:49:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Hmm. One issue with the patch is that we finish by considering > DEALLOCATE ALL and DEALLOCATE $1 as the same things, compiling the > same query IDs. The difference is made in the Nodes by assigning NULL > to the name but we would

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:11:13PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > As far as I could tell the only thing missing was removing > DeallocateStmt from the list of unhandled utility statement types (and > updating comments to match). Updated patch attached. Hmm. One issue with the patch is

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-14 Thread Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Michael Paquier writes: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 02:48:22PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 03:25:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Perhaps not as much, actually, because I was just reminded that >>> DEALLOCATE is something that pg_stat_statements ignores. So this >

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-13 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 02:48:22PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 03:25:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Perhaps not as much, actually, because I was just reminded that >> DEALLOCATE is something that pg_stat_statements ignores. So this >> makes harder the introduction

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-12 Thread Julien Rouhaud
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 03:25:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:46:58AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > > Agreed, it should be as trivial to implement as for the 2pc commands :) > > Perhaps not as much, actually, because I was just reminded that > DEALLOCATE is some

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-08-12 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:46:58AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:37:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:22:09AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: >>> Looking at the rest of the ignored patterns, the only remaining one would be >>> DEALLOCATE, whic

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-07-31 Thread Julien Rouhaud
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:37:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:22:09AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > Looking at the rest of the ignored patterns, the only remaining one would be > > DEALLOCATE, which AFAICS doesn't have a query_jumble_ignore tag for now. > > This o

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-07-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 10:22:09AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Looking at the rest of the ignored patterns, the only remaining one would be > DEALLOCATE, which AFAICS doesn't have a query_jumble_ignore tag for now. This one seems to be simple as well with a location field, looking quickly at it

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-07-31 Thread Julien Rouhaud
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 11:00:32AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 09:28:08AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > FTR we had to entirely ignore all those statements in powa years ago to try > > to > > make the tool usable in such case for some users who where using 2pc, it

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-07-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 09:28:08AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Having an application relying on 2pc leads to pg_stat_statements being > virtually unusable on the whole instance, so +1 for the patch. Cool, thanks for the feedback! > FTR we had to entirely ignore all those statements in powa yea

Re: Ignore 2PC transaction GIDs in query jumbling

2023-07-31 Thread Julien Rouhaud
Hi, On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 09:38:14AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > 31de7e6 has silenced savepoint names in the query jumbling, and > something similar can be done for 2PC transactions once the GID is > ignored in TransactionStmt. This leads to the following grouping in > pg_stat_statements,