pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp>
Cc: nagata@sraoss.co.jp
Cc: coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
Cc: thomas.munro@gmail.com
Cc: m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: teodor@sigaev.ru
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:36:07 -0400
Message-ID: <51566.1648312567@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220325.102520.1046619137276131190.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp>
References: <3163793.1648166710@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20220325.091400.602625132738741785.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp>
	<20220325101218.f70a36ae31064117c02f8b9e@sraoss.co.jp>
	<20220325.102520.1046619137276131190.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp>

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> Thanks. Patch pushed.

This patch has caused the PDF documentation to fail to build cleanly:

[WARN] FOUserAgent - The contents of fo:block line 1 exceed the available area in the inline-progression direction by more than 50 points. (See position 125066:375)

It's complaining about this:

<synopsis>
<replaceable>interval_start</replaceable> <replaceable>num_transactions</replaceable> <replaceable>sum_latency</replaceable> <replaceable>sum_latency_2</replaceable> <replaceable>min_latency</replaceable> <replaceable>max_latency</replaceable> { <replaceable>failures</replaceable> | <replaceable>serialization_failures</replaceable> <replaceable>deadlock_failures</replaceable> } <optional> <replaceable>sum_lag</replaceable> <replaceable>sum_lag_2</replaceable> <replaceable>min_lag</replaceable> <replaceable>max_lag</replaceable> <optional> <replaceable>skipped</replaceable> </optional> </optional> <optional> <replaceable>retried</replaceable> <replaceable>retries</replaceable> </optional>
</synopsis>

which runs much too wide in HTML format too, even though that toolchain
doesn't tell you so.

We could silence the warning by inserting an arbitrary line break or two,
or refactoring the syntax description into multiple parts.  Either way
seems to create a risk of confusion.

TBH, I think the *real* problem is that the complexity of this log format
has blown past "out of hand".  Can't we simplify it?  Who is really going
to use all these numbers?  I pity the poor sucker who tries to write a
log analysis tool that will handle all the variants.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (82+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <51566.1648312567@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../51566.1648312567@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/51566.1648312567@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, ishii@sraoss.co.jp, nagata@sraoss.co.jp, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, thomas.munro@gmail.com, m.polyakova@postgrespro.ru, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, teodor@sigaev.ru
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
  In-Reply-To: <51566.1648312567@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox