Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6
Date
Msg-id 20170309191949.syb4dzp6twncb3sd@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6  (Naytro Naytro <naytro@googlemail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6  (Naytro Naytro <naytro@googlemail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2017-03-09 13:47:35 +0100, Naytro Naytro wrote:
> We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest
> version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth.
> 
> Upgrade was done by pg_upgrade from 9.4 directly do 9.6.1. Now we
> upgraded to 9.6.2 with no improvement.
> 
> Some information about our setup: Freebsd, Solaris (SmartOS), simple
> master-slave using streaming replication.

Which node is on which of those, and where is the high load?


> Problem:
> Very high system CPU when master is streaming replication data, CPU
> goes up to 77%. Only one process is generating this load, it's a
> postgresql startup process. When I attached a truss to this process I
> saw a lot o read calls with almost the same number of errors (EAGAIN).

Hm. Just to clarify: The load is on the *receiving* side, in the startup
process?  Because the load doesn't quite look that way...


> read(6,0x7fffffffa0c7,1) ERR#35 'Resource temporarily unavailable'
> 
> Descriptor 6 is a pipe

That's presumably a latches internal pipe.  Could you redo that
truss/strace with timestamps attached?  Does truss show signals
received? The above profile would e.g. make a lot more sense if not.  Is
the wal receiver sending signals?


> Read call try to read one byte over and over, I looked up to source
> code and I think this file is responsible for this behavior
> src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c. There was no such file in 9.4.

It was "just" moved (and expanded), used to be at
src/backend/port/unix_latch.c.

There normally shouldn't be that much "latch traffic" in the startup
process, we'd expect to block from within WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable().

Hm.  Any chance you've configured a recovery_min_apply_delay?  Although
I'd expect more timestamp calls in that case.


Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] tzdata2017a breaks timestamptz regression test