Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 13:14 +1200, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Oliver, would it be possible to show a simplified call sequence and what
> > you would like to see logged for each call?

These are good: Maybe it should even be in the docs for the driver?
It would be good if it could be written as a test within the driver, so
we can expand it and test the logging.

> The JDBC driver generates one of these sequences:
>
> (1)
>   Parse (unnamed statement) "SELECT 1"
>   Bind (unnamed statement -> unnamed portal)
>   Execute (unnamed portal, no row limit)
>
> (2)
>   Parse (named statement S_1) "SELECT 1"
>   repeatedly:
>     Bind (named statement S_1 -> unnamed portal)
>     Execute (unnamed portal, no row limit)
>
> (3)
>   Parse (named statement S_2) "SELECT 1"
>   repeatedly:
>     Bind (named statement S_2 -> named portal C_2)
>     repeatedly:
>       Execute (named portal C_2, row limit 42)

Are we sure there is just 3 cases?

> Ideal output is:
>
> (1)  LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>
> (2)  LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>      LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>      LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>
> (3)  LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>      LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>      LOG: statement: SELECT 1
>
> In case (3), that's one log line per repeat of the outer loop,
> regardless of how many Executes are sent in the inner loop.

> Note that case (1) is the most common case for application queries via
> the JDBC driver, and case (2) is the most common for internally
> generated statements like BEGIN.

Even if case (3) is not that common, I still want to know it is
occurring, to see what effect or overhead it has.

> As you can see from the output I'd like, I don't think that synthesizing
> FETCH / EXECUTE queries that don't actually exist [is a]
> useful thing to do, at least at the Joe Average User
> level.

Your original point at the top of this thread was valid: a get-next-rows
shouldn't look like a re-execute. We can call it something else if you
like, as long as we can tell the difference.

We'll only see the output for case (3) when someone has programmed
things that way by using setFetchSize.

> Also note that the JDBC driver doesn't exercise all of the extended
> protocol -- for example it's possible to re-Bind the same unnamed
> statement repeatedly, or have multiple Executes on an unnamed portal
> with a row limit, but the JDBC driver never does that.

I agree there's not much gained from displaying the BIND statement as it
is. I argued previously against including the BIND parameters. Now I
would say we should either include them or leave out BIND altogether.

Here's a new suggestion and patch that brings together
- Oliver and Simon's wish to remove BIND from normal logging
- Oliver's suggestion to remove the PREPARE logging for unnamed
statements, which would otherwise double-up logging for case(1)
- Bruce and Simon's view to keep some form of FETCH logging
- Tom's view to rationalise the way ROWS is mentioned

(lines beginning jdbc don't show in the log, but are just there to show
clearly the time sequence of activities and what gets subsequently
logged)

(1)
>   Parse (unnamed statement) "SELECT * from pg_proc"
>   Bind (unnamed statement -> unnamed portal)
>   Execute (unnamed portal, no row limit)

(1)
jdbc parse
jdbc bind
jdbc execute
LOG:  statement: SELECT * from pg_proc

jdbc parse
jdbc bind
jdbc execute
LOG:  statement: SELECT * from pg_proc

jdbc parse
jdbc bind
jdbc execute
LOG:  statement: SELECT * from pg_proc


Notice that the parse of the unnamed statement does *not* now generate a
log record.

(2)
>   Parse (named statement S_1) "SELECT * from pg_proc"
>   repeatedly:
>     Bind (named statement S_1 -> unnamed portal)
>     Execute (unnamed portal, no row limit)

(2)
jdbc parse S_1
LOG:  statement: PREPARE S_1 AS SELECT * from pg_proc
(perhaps this should be logged at BIND time, just like the
optimization?)

jdbc bind S_1
jdbc execute
LOG:  statement: EXECUTE <unnamed> [PREPARE:  SELECT * from pg_proc]

jdbc bind S_1
jdbc execute
LOG:  statement: EXECUTE <unnamed> [PREPARE:  SELECT * from pg_proc]

jdbc bind S_1
jdbc execute
LOG:  statement: EXECUTE <unnamed> [PREPARE:  SELECT * from pg_proc]


...I wonder if <unnamed> just confuses what is going on here? I've left
it in for now, but suggest that we take that out again?

(3)
>   Parse (named statement S_2) "SELECT * from pg_proc"
>   repeatedly:
>     Bind (named statement S_2 -> named portal C_2)
>     repeatedly:
>       Execute (named portal C_2, row limit 42)

(3)
jdbc prepare S_2
LOG:  statement: PREPARE S_2 AS SELECT * from pg_proc

jdbc bind S_2 to C_2
jdbc execute C_2
LOG:  statement: EXECUTE C_2 ROWS 42 [PREPARE:  SELECT * from pg_proc]
jdbc next (after cache has run out on 42nd row)
v3 protocol sends E for Execute, execution halts at 49 rows for this set
of bind parameters
LOG:  statement: FETCH C_2 ROWS 7

jdbc bind S_2 to C_2
jdbc execute C_2
LOG:  statement: EXECUTE C_2 ROWS 42 [PREPARE:  SELECT * from pg_proc]
jdbc next (after cache has run out on 42nd row)
v3 protocol sends E for Execute
LOG:  statement: FETCH C_2 ROWS 42
jdbc next (after cache has run out on 84th row)
v3 protocol sends E for Execute, execution halts at 95 rows for this set
of bind parameters
LOG:  statement: FETCH C_2 ROWS 11

Note: log_min_duration_statement logs after execution so can give
accurate row counts of what was retrieved for first execute and
subsequent fetches. In that case we log using the word ROWS.
log_statement=all logs before execution and so only knows what the
maximum number of rows requested is, not what the actual number of rows
retrieved will be. In that case we log using the word MAXROWS.
ROWS and MAXROWS are *not* mentioned unless we specifically set max_rows
in the execute request using the v3 protocol.

If we agree, I'd suggest this goes into the docs...

I've not written a comprehensive test program that covers all of the
different settings of v2/v3, named/unnamed, allrows/restricted rows,
log_statement=all/log_min_duration_statement. I'm not sure that will fit
within the existing test framework. So this patch is still prototype.

Comments?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs