Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:33:19 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, robertmhaas@gmail.com,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL
 usage calculation patch)
Message-ID: <20200411223319.GM2228@telsasoft.com>
References: <20200319153129.GA36079@nol>
 <CAB-hujo_bnDsV7C1BNLMacC4gKTyHeR8_Fsdyv+rSoOcsk5HiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1452be6-9e82-59c4-3c54-b3f8919e75c0@oss.nttdata.com>
 <762d4ee8-9710-cdcd-e661-b5c79aaa9bf0@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CAOBaU_bb6gf-33qCsMiZYy6EupqAcT5xga3iM8q-=-Ap=+9w_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-hujrX8BWGYDH0h-4c0AQt0dfkNdaOPAaw5n7KWnzVe6vPOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOBaU_bRp3HmAnerZWFO00f8dx=nwU5WMUVY0woVY5kwMa_jEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+nLPguL+a1JStyx+L9xh0X3nQ3tXptorsggT6dn9oPLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200328133827.GA12854@nol>
 <20200328151721.GB12854@nol>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200328151721.GB12854@nol>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

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 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.
> 
> I added an open for that, and adding Robert in Cc as 9da0cc352 is the first
> commit adding parallel maintenance.

I believe this is resolved for parallel vacuum in master and parallel create
index back to PG11.

I marked this as closed.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=PostgreSQL_13_Open_Items&diff=34802&oldid=34781

-- 
Justin