Hi, Le mar. 8 oct. 2024 à 09:29, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:00:13AM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > > Le lun. 7 oct. 2024 à 02:18, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> a > écrit : > >> I'd recommend to split that into more independent patches: > >> - Introduce the two counters in EState with the incrementations done > >> in nodeGatherMerge.c and nodeGather.c (mentioned that at [2], you may > >> want to coordinate with Benoit to avoid duplicating the work). > >> - Expand pg_stat_statements to use them for DMLs, SELECTs, well where > >> they matter. > >> - Look at expanding that for utilities that can do parallel jobs: > >> CREATE INDEX and VACUUM, but this has lower priority to me, and this > >> can reuse the same counters as the ones added by patch 2. > > > > The first two are done. The last one is beyond my scope. > > That's fair. I have put my hands on this patch set, finishing with > the attached. > > A couple of notes: > - I've been struggling a bit on the "planned" vs "launched" terms used > in the names for the counters. It is inconsistent with the backend > state, where we talk about workers "to launch" and workers "launched". > "planned" does not really apply to utilities, as this may not be > planned per se. > You're right. Much better to keep them consistent. > - The test in parallel.sql can be cheaper, tweaking the right GUCs the > right way data in the table is not even required to spawn a set of > parallel workers. > Yeah, it could be cheaper. As it is already quick, I didn't do the extra mile to make it cheaper. > - Meson was not updated for the new test and the files to install. > > Oops, sorry. Didn't know that Meson had to be updated. > 0001 and 0002 are the parts of the patch that I can see myself > applying; it is pretty cool to see pg_stat_statements complain that > the launched/to_launch ratio can get unbalanced really quickly when I > do something stupid. The CI is stable with these. > > Great, thanks :) > 0003 has the remaining bits with the 3rd and 4th counters, able to > apply on top of 0002. > Still think they are interesting but I understand your concerns. I've done a bit of testing with the three patches, and didn't find any issue with them. -- Guillaume.
