public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: torikoshia <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Allow EXPLAIN to Output Page Fault Information
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:31:38 -0500
Message-ID: <edvo7bpgi7rcthj7btsduleep4j6dcnsx3a2aqrwmybetttmkw@g5chr66cckg6> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQTm6oEEY4yO_FO0ZBtUuJX+pYiXhw2GPPRMzq_5DP5_fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAM6-o=BE=oewSsdNKrbbNjR2muzQR49STXsuta+Wpq6CSyxTag@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGECzQRvcLx44N3zd_DGCjY02XX4AqXX8mq4BiS8C9Froy+Jhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGECzQQdc-k=M2fMCKa98kVZntc=6d3rpd6edt8Qs45cayfUeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<myw76agwrlmisvamwbfl6ibxgwh5glzitydiwnfmtb5aui232i@274yxxtnbnsp>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGECzQTm6oEEY4yO_FO0ZBtUuJX+pYiXhw2GPPRMzq_5DP5_fQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 2025-02-09 21:06:02 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 19:05, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> > > I'm somewhat against this patch, as it's fairly fundamentally incompatible
> > > with AIO. There's no real way to get information in this manner if the IO
> > > isn't executed synchronously in process context...
> 
> Hmm, I had not considered how this would interact with your AIO work.
> I agree that getting this info would be hard/impossible to do
> efficiently, when IOs are done by background IO processes that
> interleave IOs from different queries. But I'd expect that AIOs that
> are done using iouring would be tracked correctly without having to
> change this code at all (because I assume those are done from the
> query backend process).
> 
> One other thought: I think the primary benefit of this feature is
> being able to see how many read IOs actually hit the disk, as opposed
> to hitting OS page cache. That benefit disappears when using Direct
> IO, because then there's no OS page cache.
> 
> How many years away do you think that widespread general use of
> AIO+Direct IO is, though?

I think it'll always be a subset of use. It doesn't make sense to use DIO for
a small databases or untuned databases. Or a system that's deliberately
overcommmitted.

But this will also not work with AIO w/ Buffered IO. Which we hope to use much
more commonly.

If suddenly I have to reimplement something like this to work with worker
based IO, it'll certainly take longer to get to AIO.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: RFC: Allow EXPLAIN to Output Page Fault Information
  In-Reply-To: <edvo7bpgi7rcthj7btsduleep4j6dcnsx3a2aqrwmybetttmkw@g5chr66cckg6>

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

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