Hi, On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:40:27AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:07:46AM -0500, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote: > > Having to add special handling to space out instrumentation > > directly in vacuum_delay_point seems very odd to me. I don't > > think vacuum_delay_point should have to worry about this. > > > > Also, > > 1/ what is an appropriate interval to collect these stats? > > 2/ What if there are other callers in the future that wish > > to instrument parallel vacuum workers? they will need to implement > > similar logic. > > None of this seems intractable to me. 1 Hz seems like an entirely > reasonable place to start, and it is very easy to change (or to even make > configurable). pg_stat_progress_vacuum might show slightly old values in > this column, but that should be easy enough to explain in the docs if we > are really concerned about it. If other callers want to do something > similar, maybe we should add a more generic implementation in > backend_progress.c. >
As it looks like we have a consensus that reducing the number of interrupts also makes sense, I just provided a rebase version of the 1 Hz version (see [0], that also makes clear in the doc that the new field might show slightly old values). [0]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZsSQnS9OW9EWSOk4%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
