On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:10:34AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> For online, we should want throttling so that the check can have a reduced
> performance impact when scrubbing.
Yes. Throttling is a necessary property in my opinion, perhaps in
combination with some autovacuum-like options to only
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 04:02:59PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Can you explain in more detail how this would work? I thought we came to
> the conclusion (and the documentation seems to indicate so), that you
> should stop all participating instances of a cluster and then enable
> checksums on all
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 02.04.2019, 15:56 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> Regarding all this tooling around checksums. With v12, enabling
> checksums with no actual downtime is doable with a primary-standby
> deployment using physical replication and one planned failover
Can you explain in more de
For pg_checksums, probably some improvement patch will be submitted later,
if someone feels like it.
Let's see. I think that what we have now in v12 is good enough for
checksum operations on an offline cluster. And my take is that we
should focus more on online checksum verification for v13
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:11:45AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Nope, this was way before I intervened. ISTM that a patch was submitted to
> get per second or slower progress reporting on the initalization, and it was
> rejected. Now that there are many SSD, maybe I could bring it back. An issue
>
Bonjour Michaël,
Maybe it should be -P X where X is the expected
delay in seconds. Pgbench progress reporting on initialization basically
outputs 10 rows per second, probably it is too much.
I cannot say for pgbench. I personally think that's a lot but you are
the one who wrote it as such I
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 07:26:00PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Hmmm. Progress is more an interactive feature where the previous result is
> overriden thanks to the \r.
Well, many people also redirect the output for such things.
> Maybe it should be -P X where X is the expected
> delay in second
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 08:51:03PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> I had another look and I don't see any slowdown with your patch.
I noticed one slowdown when using --disable --progress as this was
scanning the data directory for the total size but we don't need it in
this case. Fixed that and com
Hi,
Am Montag, den 01.04.2019, 15:10 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:07:41PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > The way you've now changed this is that there's a function call into
> > progress_report() for every block that's being read, even if there is no
> > progress re
Bonjour Michaël,
I do not think that it matters. I like to see things moving, and the
performance impact is null.
Another point is that this bloats the logs redirected to a file by 4
compared to the initial proposal. I am not sure that this helps
much for anybody.
Hmmm. Progress is more an
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 06:52:56PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I do not think that it matters. I like to see things moving, and the
> performance impact is null.
Another point is that this bloats the logs redirected to a file by 4
compared to the initial proposal. I am not sure that this helps
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:07:41PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The way you've now changed this is that there's a function call into
> progress_report() for every block that's being read, even if there is no
> progress reporting requested. That looks like a pretty severe
> performance problem so I
Hi,
so we are basically back at the original patch as written by Bernd :)
> +/*
> + * Report current progress status. Parts borrowed from
> + * PostgreSQLs' src/bin/pg_basebackup.c
> + */
> +static void
> +progress_report(bool force)
> +{
> + int percent;
> + char
Bonjour Michaël,
Getting to know the total size and the current size are the two
important factors that matter when it comes to do progress reporting
in my opinion. I have read the patch, and I am not really convinced
by the need to show the progress report based on an interval of 250ms
as we
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:53:59PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I think that it is good to show the overall impact of the signal stuff, in
> particular the fact that the size must always be computed if the progress
> may be activated.
Getting to know the total size and the current size are the tw
Hallo Michael,
but I'd advise that you split it in (1) progress and (2) signal
toggling so that the first part is more likely to make it before 12
freeze.
Ok, done so in the attached.
Fine.
I think that it is good to show the overall impact of the signal stuff, in
particular the fact that
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 28.03.2019, 10:08 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> I marked it as ready,
Thanks!
> but I'd advise that you split it in (1) progress and (2) signal
> toggling so that the first part is more likely to make it before 12
> freeze.
Ok, done so in the attached.
Michael
--
Mi
Otherwise a very minor comment: I'd invert !force and the computations in
the return condition to avoid the computations when not needed.
The force is only ever true right at the end of the program so it would
not save anything really and detract from the main gist of that
statement, so I lef
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 28.03.2019, 09:41 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> Hallo Michael,
>
> > > Or anything which converts to double early.
> > Are you sure, seeing elapsed is a double already?
>
>
> Argh, I missed that. You are right that a double elapsed is enough for the
> second part. Howev
Hallo Michael,
Or anything which converts to double early.
Are you sure, seeing elapsed is a double already?
Argh, I missed that. You are right that a double elapsed is enough for the
second part. However, with
+ current_speed = (current_size / MEGABYTES) / (elapsed / 1000.0);
the
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 21:31 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > > I still think that the speed should compute a double to avoid integer
> > > rounding errors within the computation. ISTM that rounding should only be
> > > done for display in the end.
> >
> > Ok, also done this way. I deci
I still think that the speed should compute a double to avoid integer
rounding errors within the computation. ISTM that rounding should only be
done for display in the end.
Ok, also done this way. I decided to print only full MB and not any
further digits as those don't seem very relevant.
Hi,
thanks again for your review!
Am Mittwoch, den 27.03.2019, 15:34 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> Hallo Michael,
>
> About patch v12:
>
> Patch applies cleanly, compiles. make check ok, but feature is not tested.
> Doc build ok.
>
> Although I'm in favor of it, I'm not sure that the signal
Hallo Michael,
About patch v12:
Patch applies cleanly, compiles. make check ok, but feature is not tested.
Doc build ok.
Although I'm in favor of it, I'm not sure that the signal think will make
it for 12. Maybe it is worth compromising, doing a simple version for now,
and resubmitting th
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 23.03.2019, 10:49 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:23:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > The current version prints a newline when it progress reporting is
> > toggled off. Do you mean there is a hazard that this happens right when
> > we are printi
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:23:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> The current version prints a newline when it progress reporting is
> toggled off. Do you mean there is a hazard that this happens right when
> we are printing the progress, so end up with a partly garbage line? I
> don't think that'd
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 19.03.2019, 09:04 +0900 schrieb Kyotaro HORIGUCHI:
> At Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:14:01 +0100 (CET), Fabien COELHO
> wrote in
> > >>> + /* we handle SIGUSR1 only, and toggle the value of show_progress
> > >>> */
> > >>> + if (signum == SIGUSR1)
> > >>> + show_
Hello.
At Mon, 18 Mar 2019 23:14:01 +0100 (CET), Fabien COELHO
wrote in
>
> > I have rebased it now.
>
> Thanks. Will look at it.
>
> >> If the all of aboves are involved, the line would look as the
> >> follows.
> >>
> >> [=== ] ( 63% of 12.53 GB, 179 MB/s,
>
I have rebased it now.
Thanks. Will look at it.
If the all of aboves are involved, the line would look as the
follows.
[=== ] ( 63% of 12.53 GB, 179 MB/s, ETC 26s)
# Note that this is just an opinion.
(pg_checksum runs fast at the beginning so ETC behaves s
Hi,
thanks for the additional review!
Am Donnerstag, den 14.03.2019, 11:54 +0900 schrieb Kyotaro HORIGUCHI:
> At Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:25:15 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in <20190313072515.gb2...@paquier.xyz>
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:22:28AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > Does not appl
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:54:17AM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Why this patch changes the behavior for temprary directories? It
> seems like a bug fix of pg_checksums.
Oops, that's a thinko from 5c995139, so fixed. Note this has no
actual consequence though as PG_TEMP_FILE_PREFIX and PG_TEM
Hello.
At Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:25:15 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in <20190313072515.gb2...@paquier.xyz>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:22:28AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Does not apply because of the renaming committed by Michaël.
> >
> > Could you rebase?
>
> This stuff touches pg_checksum
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 07:22:28AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Does not apply because of the renaming committed by Michaël.
>
> Could you rebase?
This stuff touches pg_checksums.c, so you may want to wait one day or
two to avoid extra work... I think that I'll be able to finish the
addition of
Hallo Michael,
I would bother rounding down < 100% to 100, because then you would get
1560/1492 MB (100\%, X MB/s)
which is kind of silly.
No, we cap the total_size to current_size so you won't see that (but
total_size will potentially gradually increase). pg_basebackup has the
same beha
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2019, 16:37 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO
>
> About :
>
> total_percent = total_size ? (int64) ((current_size / MEGABYTES) * 100 /
> (total_size / MEGABYTES)) : 0;
>
> MEGABYTES can be simplified and will enhance precision. ISTM that the
> percent could be a double:
Hallo Michael,
New patch attached.
Patch applies cleanly. Compiles, "make check" ok. doc build is also ok.
There are no tests, which is probably fine for such an interactive
feature.
Docs look okay to me. Clear and to the point.
About :
total_percent = total_size ? (int64) ((current_s
Hi,
Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 13:42 -0300 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> On 2019-Feb-18, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
> > Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > > > Surely we know at that point whether this first scan is needed, and
> > > > we can skip it if not?
> > >
> > > Yeah
On 2019-Feb-18, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > > Surely we know at that point whether this first scan is needed, and
> > we
> > > can skip it if not?
> >
> > Yeah - new patch attached.
>
> Maybe i'm wrong, but my thought is that this break
Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 16:52 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
> > Surely we know at that point whether this first scan is needed, and
> we
> > can skip it if not?
>
> Yeah - new patch attached.
Maybe i'm wrong, but my thought is that this breaks the SIGUSR1
business, since there seems no code pat
Hi,
Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 11:18 -0300 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> On 2019-Feb-17, Michael Banck wrote:
> > + /*
> > +* As progress status information may be requested, we need to scan the
> > +* directory tree(s) twice, once to get the idea how much data we need
> > to
> > +* sca
On 2019-Feb-17, Michael Banck wrote:
> + /*
> + * As progress status information may be requested, we need to scan the
> + * directory tree(s) twice, once to get the idea how much data we need
> to
> + * scan and finally to do the real legwork.
> + */
> + total_size =
Hi,
Am Montag, den 18.02.2019, 12:24 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 09:00:29PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Well, pg_rewind is also using kB, so should I switch it back to that?
>
> I am not sure which one is better, sorry :)
>
> There is an argument for switching pg
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 09:00:29PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Well, pg_rewind is also using kB, so should I switch it back to that?
I am not sure which one is better, sorry :)
There is an argument for switching pg_rewind to use MB as well. I
don't expect pg_rewind to transfer gigs of data, bu
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 26.12.2018, 11:14 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 07:05:30PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > You use 1024² bytes. What about 100 bytes per MB, as the
> > unit is about stored files?
I haven't changed that as Ihave not been pointed to a clear proje
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:45:09PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Umm, this is established coding pattern in pg_basebackup.c.
> Stylistically I'd change all those cases to "fprintf(stderr,
> isatty(fileno(stderr)) ? "\r" : "\n")" but leave the string alone, since
> AFAIR it took some time to figure
On 2018-Dec-26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + /*
> +* If we are reporting to a terminal, send a carriage return so that we
> +* stay on the same line. If not, send a newline.
> +*/
> + if (isatty(fileno(stderr)))
> + fprintf(stderr, "\r");
> + else
> + fprintf(stderr, "
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 07:05:30PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> You use 1024² bytes. What about 100 bytes per MB, as the unit is about
> stored files?
>
> Also, you did not answer to my other points:
> - use "instr_time.h" for better precision
> - invert sizeonly
> - reuse a test
It seems
I think MB indeed makes more sense than kB, so I have changed that now
in V7, per attached.
You use 1024² bytes. What about 100 bytes per MB, as the unit is about
stored files?
Also, you did not answer to my other points:
- use "instr_time.h" for better precision
- invert sizeonly
-
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 25.12.2018, 12:12 +0100 schrieb Fabien COELHO:
> > Given the speed of verifying checksums and its storage-oriented status, I
> > also still think that a (possibly fractional) MB (1,000,000 bytes), or even
> > GB, is the right unit to use for reporting this progress. On my la
Given the speed of verifying checksums and its storage-oriented status, I
also still think that a (possibly fractional) MB (1,000,000 bytes), or even
GB, is the right unit to use for reporting this progress. On my laptop (SSD),
verifying runs at least at 1.26 GB/s (on one small test), there i
Hallo Michael,
V5 attached.
Patch applies cleanly, compiles, global & local make check are ok.
Given that the specific output is not checked, I do not think that the -P
check deserves a test on its own, I think that the -P option could simply
be added to any of the existing tests.
I'm s
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:50:36AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:07 AM Michael Banck
> wrote:
> Windows doesn't like sigaction:
>
> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.15189
Thanks for the report and sorry for taking so long to rep
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:51 AM Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:07 AM Michael Banck
> wrote:
> > I've attached v4 of the patch.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Windows doesn't like sigaction:
>
> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.15189
>
> I'm not s
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:07 AM Michael Banck wrote:
> I've attached v4 of the patch.
Hi Michael,
Windows doesn't like sigaction:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.15189
I'm not sure if we classify this as a "frontend" program. Should it
be using pqsignal()
The time() granularity to the second makes the result awkward on small
tests:
8/1554552 kB (0%, 8 kB/s)
1040856/1554552 kB (66%, 1040856 kB/s)
1554552/1554552 kB (100%, 1554552 kB/s)
I'd suggest to reuse the "portability/instr_time.h" stuff which allows a
much better precision.
I still thin
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:46:06AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> The xml documentation should be updated! (It is kind of hard to notice what
> is not there:-)
>
> See "doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml".
Right, I've added a paragraph.
> >>The time() granularity to the second makes
Hallo Michael,
About patch v3: applies cleanly and compiles.
The xml documentation should be updated! (It is kind of hard to notice
what is not there:-)
See "doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_verify_checksums.sgml".
The time() granularity to the second makes the result awkward on small
tests:
8/15545
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:21 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Sep-01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > If -P was forgotten and pg_verify_checksums operates on a large cluster,
> > > the caller can send SIGUSR1 to pg_verify_checksums to turn progress
> > > status reporting on during runtime.
> >
> > Hmm
Hi,
thanks for the review!
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 05:17:05PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>This optionally prints the progress of pg_verify_checksums via read
> >>kilobytes to the terminal with the new command line argument -P.
> >>
> >>If -P was forgotten and pg_verify_checksums operates on a
Hallo Michael,
This optionally prints the progress of pg_verify_checksums via read
kilobytes to the terminal with the new command line argument -P.
If -P was forgotten and pg_verify_checksums operates on a large cluster,
the caller can send SIGUSR1 to pg_verify_checksums to turn progress
stat
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 31.08.2018, 14:50 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
> my colleague Bernd Helmle recently added progress reporting to our
> pg_checksums application[1]. I have now forward ported this to
> pg_verify_checksums for the September commitfest, please see the
> attached patch.
>
> Here's
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 11:21:32AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Sep-01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > > If -P was forgotten and pg_verify_checksums operates on a large cluster,
> > > the caller can send SIGUSR1 to pg_verify_checksums to turn progress
> > > status reporting on during runti
On 2018-Sep-01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > If -P was forgotten and pg_verify_checksums operates on a large cluster,
> > the caller can send SIGUSR1 to pg_verify_checksums to turn progress
> > status reporting on during runtime.
>
> Hmmm. I cannot say I like the signal feature much. Would it make se
Hallo Michael,
my colleague Bernd Helmle recently added progress reporting to our
pg_checksums application[1]. I have now forward ported this to
pg_verify_checksums for the September commitfest, please see the
attached patch.
It seems that the patch does not apply cleanly on master, neither
Hi,
my colleague Bernd Helmle recently added progress reporting to our
pg_checksums application[1]. I have now forward ported this to
pg_verify_checksums for the September commitfest, please see the
attached patch.
Here's the description:
This optionally prints the progress of pg_verify_checksum
65 matches
Mail list logo
