On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 14:23, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> 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. > > > > Sawada-San would like to investigate this? If not, I will look into > this next week.
Sure, I'll investigate this issue today. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
