On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:19 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Your patch looks mostly good to me. I have made slight modifications
> > > > which include changing the non-text format in show_wal_usage to use a
> > > > capital lett
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:44 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:03 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 6:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's the patch. I included the content of
>
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:03 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 6:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the patch. I included the content of
> > > v3-fix_explain_wal_output.patch you provided before, and tried t
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 6:10 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > Here's the patch. I included the content of
> > v3-fix_explain_wal_output.patch you provided before, and tried to
> > consistently replace full page writes/fpw to full page images/
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Here's the patch. I included the content of
> v3-fix_explain_wal_output.patch you provided before, and tried to
> consistently replace full page writes/fpw to full page images/fpi
> everywhere on top of it (so documentation, command output
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:18 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 5:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Julien, are you planning to write a cleanup patch for this open item?
> >
> > Sorry Amit, I've been quite busy at
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:18 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 5:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 7:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I agree with that definition. I can se
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 5:05 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 7:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I agree with that definition. I can send a cleanup patch if there's
> > > no objection.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, fee
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 7:38 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
>
> > I agree with that definition. I can send a cleanup patch if there's
> > no objection.
> >
>
> Okay, feel free to send the patch. Thanks for taking the initiative
> to write a p
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:35:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eise
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:35:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
> >> wrote:
> >>> The internal symbol for the WAL record is
> >>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:35:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> The internal symbol for the WAL record is
>>> XLOG_FPI and xlogdesc.c prints it as "FPI".
>
> Julien, Peter, othe
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> > The internal symbol for the WAL record is
> > XLOG_FPI and xlogdesc.c prints it as "FPI".
> >
>
> That is just one way/reason we log the page. There are others as
> well. I t
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-23 07:31, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > I agree that full page writes can be used in this case, but I'm
> > wondering if that can be misleading for some reader which might e.g.
> > confuse with the full_page_writes GUC. And as Ju
On 2020-04-23 07:31, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
I agree that full page writes can be used in this case, but I'm
wondering if that can be misleading for some reader which might e.g.
confuse with the full_page_writes GUC. And as Justin pointed out, the
documentation for now usually mentions "full page
At Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:33:13 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote
in
> > > > > I think we should keep both version consistent, whether lower or upper
> > > > > case. The uppercase version is probably more correct, but it's a
> > > > > little bit weird to have it being the only upper case label in all
>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:20 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud
> > > wrote in
> > > > Hi Justin,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:27 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:25 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:15:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > > And add the acronym to the docs:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
> > > > > >
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> >
> > At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud
> > wrote in
> > > Hi Justin,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzb
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:25 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:15:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > And add the acronym to the docs:
> > > > >
> > > > > $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
> > > > > doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml: number of records, number of fu
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:15:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > And add the acronym to the docs:
> > > >
> > > > $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
> > > > doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml: number of records, number of full
> > > > page writes and amount of WAL bytes
> > > >
> > > > ".
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote
> in
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >
> > > Should capitalize at least the non-text one ? And m
At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote
in
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > Should capitalize at least the non-text one ? And maybe the text one for
> > consistency ?
> >
> > + ExplainProp
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the review!
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> Should capitalize at least the non-text one ? And maybe the text one for
> consistency ?
>
> + ExplainPropertyInteger("WAL fpw", NULL,
I think we should keep both version consistent, wheth
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 05:39:35PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:45 PM Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> > > On 2020-04-14 05:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > Peter E, others, any suggestions on how to move forward?
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:45 PM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-04-14 05:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Peter E, others, any suggestions on how to move forward? I think here
> > > we should follow the rule "follow the style of nearby
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:45 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-14 05:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Peter E, others, any suggestions on how to move forward? I think here
> > we should follow the rule "follow the style of nearby code" which in
> > this case would be to have one space after eac
On 2020-04-14 05:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
Peter E, others, any suggestions on how to move forward? I think here
we should follow the rule "follow the style of nearby code" which in
this case would be to have one space after each field as we would like
it to be closer to the "Buffers" format. It w
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We also have existing cases for the other way:
> >
> > actual time=0.050..0.052
> > Buffers: shared hit=3 dirtied=1
> >
>
> Buffers case is not the same because 'sh
Le lun. 13 avr. 2020 à 13:47, Amit Kapila a
écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:10 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:55 PM Julien Rouhaud
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:37 PM Julien Ro
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:10 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:55 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:37 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > > I tried to take into account all that have b
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:55 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:37 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > I tried to take into account all that have been discussed, but I have
> > to admit that I'm absolutely not sure of
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:55 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:37 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Would you like to send a consolidated patch that includes Euler's
> > > suggestion and Justin's patch (by making change
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:03 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud 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
Le dim. 12 avr. 2020 à 00:33, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > 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'
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud 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
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:37 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Would you like to send a consolidated patch that includes Euler's
> > suggestion and Justin's patch (by making changes for points we
> > discussed.)? I think we can keep the point rel
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
> > > wrote:
> > > Few comments:
> > > 1.
> > > - int64 wal_num_fpw; /*
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:49 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 16:04, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the investigation. I don't
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 16:04, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special
> > > about this. In an ideal world, this
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kap
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special
> > about this. In an ideal world, this should be done once and not for
> > each worker but I guess it does
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Buffer usage statistics seem correct. T
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-07 04:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted that
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:00:29PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> We also have existing cases for the other way:
>
> actual time=0.050..0.052
> Buffers: shared hit=3 dirtied=1
>
> The cases mentioned by Justin are not formatted in a key=value format, so
> it's not quite the same, but it
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:00 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-07 04:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted tha
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> > > catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
> > >
On 2020-04-07 04:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted that for example in
WAL: records=1 bytes=56
there are two spaces betwe
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> > catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
> >
>
> Agreed, but can you check which part of code does that lookup? I w
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
>
Agreed, but can you check which part of code does that lookup? I want
to see if we can avoid that from buffer usage stats or at leas
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 02:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > AFAIU, it uses heapam_index_build_range_scan but for writing to index,
> > it doesn't use buffer manager.
>
> Right. It doesn't need to use the buffer manager to write to the
> index, unl
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain rel
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted that for example in
> >
> > WAL: records=1 bytes=56
> >
> > there are two spaces between pieces of data. This
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> AFAIU, it uses heapam_index_build_range_scan but for writing to index,
> it doesn't use buffer manager.
Right. It doesn't need to use the buffer manager to write to the
index, unlike (say) GIN's CREATE INDEX.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted that for example in
>
> WAL: records=1 bytes=56
>
> there are two spaces between pieces of data. This doesn't match the rest of
> the EXPLAIN output. Can that be adju
I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted that for example in
WAL: records=1 bytes=56
there are two spaces between pieces of data. This doesn't match the
rest of the EXPLAIN output. Can that be adjusted?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Postgre
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain related patches. I am
> > > now looking into (auto)vacuum patch
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >
> > I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain related patches. I am
> > now looking into (auto)vacuum patch and have few comments.
> >
> > I wasn't paying much attention to t
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain related patches. I am
> now looking into (auto)vacuum patch and have few comments.
>
> I wasn't paying much attention to this thread. May I suggest changing
wal_num_fpw to wal_fpw? wal_records and wa
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:34:36PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:53 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:55:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Here, we are not displaying Buffers related data, so why do we think
> > > it is important to display
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:55 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 16:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The attached patch changes to the above comment and removed the code
> > > that is used to un-support only buf
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:53 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:55:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > Here, we are not displaying Buffers related data, so why do we think
> > it is important to display WAL data? I see some point in displaying
> > Buffers and WAL data in a
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:55:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:50 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain related patches. I am
> now looking into (auto)vacuum patch and have few comments.
>
Thanks!
> @@ -614,6 +616,9 @@ heap_vacuum_
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 16:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > The attached patch changes to the above comment and removed the code
> > that is used to un-support only buffer usage accumulation.
> >
>
> So, IIUC, the purpose of this patch will
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> The attached patch changes to the above comment and removed the code
> that is used to un-support only buffer usage accumulation.
>
So, IIUC, the purpose of this patch will be to count the buffer usage
due to the heap scan (in heapam_inde
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:13, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The patch for vacuum conflicts with recent changes in vacuum. So I've
> > > attached rebased one.
> > >
> >
>
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:50 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 02:39:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:24 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We can add if we want but I am not able to convince myself for that.
> > > > Do you have any use case in m
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 02:39:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:24 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > We can add if we want but I am not able to convince myself for that.
> > > Do you have any use case in mind? I think in most of the cases
> > > (except for hint-bit WAL)
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:24 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > We can add if we want but I am not able to convince myself for that.
> > Do you have any use case in mind? I think in most of the cases
> > (except for hint-bit WAL) it will be zero. If we are not sure of this
> > we can also discuss it
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 02:12:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:33 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 10:38:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > > The patch-2 might need to be
> > > > rebased if the other related patch [2] got committed first and
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:33 AM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 10:38:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > > The patch-2 might need to be
> > > rebased if the other related patch [2] got committed first and we
> > > might need to tweak a bit based on the input from other thread
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 10:38:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:40 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have analyzed the WAL and there could be mult
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:40 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I have analyzed the WAL and there could be multiple reasons for the
> > > same. With small data, I have noticed that whil
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:40 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I have analyzed the WAL and there could be multiple reasons for the
> > same. With small data, I have noticed that while inserting in the
> > system index there was a Page Split and th
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:55 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think now I got the reason. Basically, both of these
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:17 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:55 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I think now I got the reason. Basically, both of these records are
> > > storing the FPW, and FPW size can vary based on
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:55 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I think now I got the reason. Basically, both of these records are
> > storing the FPW, and FPW size can vary based on the hole size on the
> > page. If hold size is smaller the image
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:55 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I think now I got the reason. Basically, both of these records are
> storing the FPW, and FPW size can vary based on the hole size on the
> page. If hold size is smaller the image length will be more, the
> image_len= BLCKSZ-hole_size. So in
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:28 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > =# select query, calls, wal_bytes, wal_records, wal_num_fpw from
> > > pg_stat_statements where query ilike '%create i
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:15 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> The v13 patch seems failing to apply on the master.
>
It is probably due to recent commit ed7a509571. I have briefly
studied that and I think we should make this patch account for plan
time WAL usage if any similar to what go
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 6:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 4.
> > > > /* # of WAL full page image generated
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 6:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > 4.
> > > /* # of WAL full page image generated */
> > > Can we change it to "/* # of WAL full page image records generated
Hello.
The v13 patch seems failing to apply on the master.
At Fri, 3 Apr 2020 06:37:21 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > 4.
> > > /* # of WAL full page image generated */
> > >
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > 4.
> > /* # of WAL full page image generated */
> > Can we change it to "/* # of WAL full page image records generated */"?
>
> IMHO, "# of WAL full-page image records" seems like the n
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > =# select query, calls, wal_bytes, wal_records, wal_num_fpw from
> > pg_stat_statements where query ilike '%create index%';
> > query | calls
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 06:40:51PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > =# select query, calls, wal_bytes, wal_records, wal_num_fpw from
> > pg_stat_statements where query ilike '%create index%';
> > query
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > =# select query, calls, wal_bytes, wal_records, wal_num_fpw from
> > pg_stat_statements where query ilike '%create index%';
> > query | calls
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> =# select query, calls, wal_bytes, wal_records, wal_num_fpw from
> pg_stat_statements where query ilike '%create index%';
> query | calls | wal_bytes |
> wal_records | wal_num_fpw
> -
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 02:32:07PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:07:29AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:29:16PM +0
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:07:29AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:29:16PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > 3. Doing some testing with and without pa
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:07:29AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:29:16PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > 3. Doing some testing with and without parallelism to ensure WAL usage
> > > data is correct would be great
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm replying here to all reviews that have been sent, thanks a lot!
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:29:16PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:32 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > So here's a v9, rebased on top
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:07 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
Also, I forgot to mention that let's not base this on buffer usage
patch for create index
(v10-0002-Allow-parallel-index-creation-to-accumulate-buff) because as
per recent discussion I a
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:29:16PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 3. Doing some testing with and without parallelism to ensure WAL usage
> > data is correct would be great and if possible, share the results?
>
>
> I just saw that Dilip did so
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:13 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:34 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Peter, Is this behavior expected?
> > >
> > > Let me summarize the situation so that it would be easier for Peter to
> > > c
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:34 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Peter, Is this behavior expected?
> >
> > Let me summarize the situation so that it would be easier for Peter to
> > comment. Julien has noticed that parallel vacuum and parallel creat
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Peter, Is this behavior expected?
>
> Let me summarize the situation so that it would be easier for Peter to
> comment. Julien has noticed that parallel vacuum and parallel create
> index doesn't seem to report correct values for buffer usage st
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
