On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:01:18PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:44, Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > I think we need to change parallel maintenance commands so that they
> > > > > > report buffer usage like what ParallelQueryMain() does; prepare to
> > > > > > track buffer usage during query execution by
> > > > > > InstrStartParallelQuery(), and report it by InstrEndParallelQuery()
> > > > > > after parallel maintenance command. To report buffer usage of parallel
> > > > > > maintenance command correctly, I'm thinking that we can (1) change
> > > > > > parallel create index and parallel vacuum so that they prepare
> > > > > > gathering buffer usage, or (2) have a common entry point for parallel
> > > > > > maintenance commands that is responsible for gathering buffer usage
> > > > > > and calling the entry functions for individual maintenance command.
> > > > > > I'll investigate it more in depth.
> > > > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > I've attached two patches fixing this issue for parallel index
> > creation and parallel vacuum. These approaches take the same approach;
> > we allocate DSM to share buffer usage and the leader gathers them,
> > described as approach (1) above. I think this is a straightforward
> > approach for this issue. We can create a common entry point for
> > parallel maintenance command that is responsible for gathering buffer
> > usage as well as sharing query text etc. But it will accompany
> > relatively big change and it might be overkill at this stage. We can
> > discuss that and it will become an item for PG14.
> >
>
> The patch for vacuum conflicts with recent changes in vacuum. So I've
> attached rebased one.
Thanks Sawada-san!
Just minor nitpicking:
+ int i;
Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
Assert(ParallelVacuumIsActive(lps));
@@ -2166,6 +2172,13 @@ lazy_parallel_vacuum_indexes(Relation *Irel, IndexBulkDeleteResult **stats,
/* Wait for all vacuum workers to finish */
WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(lps->pcxt);
+ /*
+ * Next, accumulate buffer usage. (This must wait for the workers to
+ * finish, or we might get incomplete data.)
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < nworkers; i++)
+ InstrAccumParallelQuery(&lps->buffer_usage[i]);
We now allow declaring a variable in those loops, so it may be better to avoid
declaring i outside the for scope?
Other than that both patch looks good to me and a good fit for packpatching. I
also did some testing on VACUUM and CREATE INDEX and it works as expected.
