Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs)
Date
Msg-id 20220707000446.hefgyu5xikxwt4md@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs)  (Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2022-06-13 19:08:35 +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> > Have you measured the performance effects of this? On fast storage with large
> > shared_buffers I've seen these loops in profiles. It's probably fine, but it'd
> > be good to verify that.
> 
> To understand the performance effects of the above, I have taken the
> average of five checkpoints with the patch and without the patch in my
> environment. Here are the results.
> With patch: 269.65 s
> Without patch: 269.60 s

Those look like timed checkpoints - if the checkpoints are sleeping a
part of the time, you're not going to see any potential overhead.

To see whether this has an effect you'd have to make sure there's a
certain number of dirty buffers (e.g. by doing CREATE TABLE AS
some_query) and then do a manual checkpoint and time how long that
times.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Make mesage at end-of-recovery less scary.
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Backup command and functions can cause assertion failure and segmentation fault