Hi,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 04:04:05PM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch was a bit discussed on [1], and with more details on [2]. It
> introduces four new columns in pg_stat_all_tables:
>
> * parallel_seq_scan
> * last_parallel_seq_scan
> * parallel_idx_scan
> * last_parallel_idx_scan
>
> and two new columns in pg_stat_all_indexes:
>
> * parallel_idx_scan
> * last_parallel_idx_scan
>
> As Benoit said yesterday, the intent is to help administrators evaluate the
> usage of parallel workers in their databases and help configuring
> parallelization usage.
Thanks for the patch. I think that's a good idea to provide more instrumentation
in this area. So, +1 regarding this patch.
A few random comments:
1 ===
+ <row>
+ <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
+ <structfield>parallel_seq_scan</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ Number of parallel sequential scans initiated on this table
+ </para></entry>
+ </row>
I wonder if we should not update the seq_scan too to indicate that it
includes the parallel_seq_scan.
Same kind of comment for last_seq_scan, idx_scan and last_idx_scan.
2 ===
@@ -410,6 +410,8 @@ initscan(HeapScanDesc scan, ScanKey key, bool
keep_startblock)
*/
if (scan->rs_base.rs_flags & SO_TYPE_SEQSCAN)
pgstat_count_heap_scan(scan->rs_base.rs_rd);
+ if (scan->rs_base.rs_parallel != NULL)
+ pgstat_count_parallel_heap_scan(scan->rs_base.rs_rd);
Indentation seems broken.
Shouldn't the parallel counter relies on the "scan->rs_base.rs_flags &
SO_TYPE_SEQSCAN"
test too?
What about to get rid of the pgstat_count_parallel_heap_scan and add an extra
bolean parameter to pgstat_count_heap_scan to indicate if
counts.parallelnumscans
should be incremented too?
Something like:
pgstat_count_heap_scan(scan->rs_base.rs_rd, scan->rs_base.rs_parallel != NULL)
3 ===
Same comment for pgstat_count_index_scan (add an extra bolean parameter) and
get rid of pgstat_count_parallel_index_scan()).
I think that 2 === and 3 === would help to avoid missing increments should we
add those call to other places in the future.
4 ===
+ if (lstats->counts.numscans || lstats->counts.parallelnumscans)
Is it possible to have (lstats->counts.parallelnumscans) whithout having
(lstats->counts.numscans) ?
> First time I had to add new columns to a statistics catalog. I'm actually
> not sure that we were right to change pg_proc.dat manually.
I think that's the right way to do.
I don't see a CF entry for this patch. Would you mind creating one so that
we don't lost track of it?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
