Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 2023-10-11 16:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:

> Like many others I think this feature is useful to debug a long running 
> query.
> 
> Sorry for jumping late into this.
> 
> I have a few of high level comments

Thanks for your comments!

> There is a lot of similarity between what this feature does and what
> auto explain does. I see the code is also duplicated. There is some
> merit in avoiding this duplication
> 1. we will get all the features of auto_explain automatically like
> choosing a format (this was expressed somebody earlier in this
> thread), setings etc.
> 2. avoid bugs. E.g your code switches context after ExplainState has
> been allocated. These states may leak depending upon when this
> function gets called.
> 3. Building features on top as James envisions will be easier.
> 
> Considering the similarity with auto_explain I wondered whether this
> function should be part of auto_explain contrib module itself? If we
> do that users will need to load auto_explain extension and thus
> install executor hooks when this function doesn't need those. So may
> not be such a good idea. I didn't see any discussion on this.

I once thought about adding this to auto_explain, but I left it asis for 
below reasons:

- One of the typical use case of pg_log_query_plan() would be analyzing 
slow query on customer environments. On such environments, We cannot 
always control what extensions to install.
   Of course auto_explain is a major extension and it is quite possible 
that they installed auto_explain, but but it is also possible they do 
not.
- It seems a bit counter-intuitive that pg_log_query_plan() is in an 
extension called auto_explain, since it `manually`` logs plans

> I tried following query to pass PID of a non-client backend to this 
> function.
> #select pg_log_query_plan(pid), application_name, backend_type from
> pg_stat_activity where backend_type = 'autovacuum launcher';
>  pg_log_query_plan | application_name |    backend_type
> -------------------+------------------+---------------------
>  t                 |                  | autovacuum launcher
> (1 row)
> I see "LOG:  backend with PID 2733631 is not running a query or a
> subtransaction is aborted" in server logs. That's ok. But may be we
> should not send signal to these kinds of backends at all, thus
> avoiding some system calls.

Agreed, it seems better.
Attached patch checks if the backendType of target process is 'client 
backend'.

   =# select pg_log_query_plan(pid), application_name, backend_type from  
pg_stat_activity where backend_type = 'autovacuum launcher';
   WARNING:  PID 63323 is not a PostgreSQL client backend process
    pg_log_query_plan | application_name |    backend_type
   -------------------+------------------+---------------------
    f                 |                  | autovacuum launcher


> I am also wondering whether it's better to report the WARNING as
> status column in the output. E.g. instead of
> #select pg_log_query_plan(100);
> WARNING:  PID 100 is not a PostgreSQL backend process
>  pg_log_query_plan
> -------------------
>  f
> (1 row)
> we output
> #select pg_log_query_plan(100);
>  pg_log_query_plan |                   status
> -------------------+---------------------------------------------
>  f                 | PID 100 is not a PostgreSQL backend process
> (1 row)
> 
> That looks neater and can easily be handled by scripts, applications
> and such. But it will be inconsistent with other functions like
> pg_terminate_backend() and pg_log_backend_memory_contexts().

It seems neater, but it might be inconvenient because we can no longer 
use it  in select list like the following query as you wrote:

   #select pg_log_query_plan(pid), application_name, backend_type from
   pg_stat_activity where backend_type = 'autovacuum launcher';

> I do share a concern that was discussed earlier. If a query is running
> longer, there's something problematic with it. A diagnostic
> intervention breaking it further would be unwelcome. James has run
> experiments to shake this code for any loose breakages. He has not
> found any. So may be we are good. And we wouldn't know about very rare
> corner cases so easily without using it in the field. So fine with it.
> If we could add some safety net that will be great but may not be
> necessary for the first cut.

If there are candidates for the safety net, I'm willing to add them.

-- 
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA Group Corporation