Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On 2021/10/21 17:40, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda > wrote: >> >> On 2021/10/20 18:17, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier >>> wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > check-world passes all tests. Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. >>> >>> No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during >>> development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to >>> remove these events which were required by the previous versions of >>> the patch. I'll take care of this. >>> >>> Thanks for the report and patch! >> Thanks for your replies and for handling it! >> > > Pushed! Thanks! Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > > On 2021/10/20 18:17, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > >>> If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > >>> users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > >>> check-world passes all tests. > >> > >> Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are > >> not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. > >> > > > > No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during > > development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to > > remove these events which were required by the previous versions of > > the patch. I'll take care of this. > > > > Thanks for the report and patch! > Thanks for your replies and for handling it! > Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On 2021/10/20 18:17, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make >>> users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make >>> check-world passes all tests. >> >> Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are >> not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. >> > > No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during > development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to > remove these events which were required by the previous versions of > the patch. I'll take care of this. > > Thanks for the report and patch! Thanks for your replies and for handling it! Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > > If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > > users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > > check-world passes all tests. > > Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are > not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. > No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to remove these events which were required by the previous versions of the patch. I'll take care of this. Thanks for the report and patch! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > check-world passes all tests. Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
Hi, When I read the documents and source code of wait evens, I found that the following wait events are never reported. * LogicalChangesRead: Waiting for a read from a logical changes file. * LogicalChangesWrite: Waiting for a write to a logical changes file. * LogicalSubxactRead: Waiting for a read from a logical subxact file. * LogicalSubxactWrite: Waiting for a write to a logical subxact file. The wait events are introduced in the following patch. Add support for streaming to built-in logical replication. Amit Kapila on 2020/9/3 11:24:07 464824323e57dc4b397e8b05854d779908b55304 I read the above discussion and found the wait events were reported at first. But they seemed to be removed because they are not necessary because BufFileWrite/BufFileRead are enough([1]). If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make check-world passes all tests. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JV37jXUT5LeWzkBDNNnSntwQbLUZAj6m82QMiR1ZuuHQ%40mail.gmail.com Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml index 7355835202..3173ec2566 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml @@ -1549,22 +1549,6 @@ postgres 27093 0.0 0.0 30096 2752 ?Ss 11:34 0:00 postgres: ser WALWrite Waiting for a write to a WAL file. - - LogicalChangesRead - Waiting for a read from a logical changes file. - - - LogicalChangesWrite - Waiting for a write to a logical changes file. - - - LogicalSubxactRead - Waiting for a read from a logical subxact file. - - - LogicalSubxactWrite - Waiting for a write to a logical subxact file. - diff --git a/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event.c b/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event.c index ef7e6bfb77..4a5b7502f5 100644 --- a/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event.c +++ b/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event.c @@ -717,18 +717,6 @@ pgstat_get_wait_io(WaitEventIO w) case WAIT_EVENT_WAL_WRITE: event_name = "WALWrite"; break; - case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_CHANGES_READ: - event_name = "LogicalChangesRead"; - break; - case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_CHANGES_WRITE: - event_name = "LogicalChangesWrite"; - break; - case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SUBXACT_READ: - event_name = "LogicalSubxactRead"; - break; - case WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SUBXACT_WRITE: - event_name = "LogicalSubxactWrite"; - break; /* no default case, so that compiler will warn */ } diff --git a/src/include/utils/wait_event.h b/src/include/utils/wait_event.h index 6007827b44..c22142365f 100644 --- a/src/include/utils/wait_event.h +++ b/src/include/utils/wait_event.h @@ -221,11 +221,7 @@ typedef enum WAIT_EVENT_WAL_READ, WAIT_EVENT_WAL_SYNC, WAIT_EVENT_WAL_SYNC_METHOD_ASSIGN, - WAIT_EVENT_WAL_WRITE, - WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_CHANGES_READ, - WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_CHANGES_WRITE, - WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SUBXACT_READ, - WAIT_EVENT_LOGICAL_SUBXACT_WRITE + WAIT_EVENT_WAL_WRITE } WaitEventIO;