Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBJEYB3QRT_uhkYdzfyddyUXE14P1Sepp0gQVOermkzWw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: On-demand running query plans using auto_explain and signals  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

Thank you for precious check.

2015-09-12 11:50 GMT+02:00 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>:
Hi,

I did a quick initial review of this patch today, so here are my comments so far:

- ipcs.c should include utils/cmdstatus.h (the compiler complains
  about implicit declaration of two functions)

- Attempts to get plan for simple insert queries like this

      INSERT INTO x SELECT * FROM x;

  end with a segfault, because ActivePortal->queryDesc is 0x0 for this
  query. Needs investigation.

- The lockless approach seems fine to me, although I think the fear
  of performance issues is a bit moot (I don't think we expect large
  number of processes calling pg_cmdstatus at the same time). But
  it's not significantly more complex, so why not.

- The patch contains pretty much no documentation, both comments
  at the code level and user docs. The lack of user docs is not that
  a big deal at this point (although the patch seems to be mature
  enough, although the user-level API will likely change).

  The lack of code comments is more serious, as it makes the review
  somewhat more difficult. For example it'd be very nice to document
  the contract for the lock-less interface.

- I agree that pg_cmdstatus() is not the best API. Having something
  like EXPLAIN PID would be nice, but it does not really work for
  all the request types (just CMD_STATUS_REQUEST_EXPLAIN). Maybe
  there's not a single API for all cases, i.e. we should use EXPLAIN
  PID for one case and invent something different for the other?

I used this simple interface because it is faster way how to get a prototype. In this patch the most complexity is in interprocess communication and in executor hooking. The UI can be designed later very quickly.

There is consensus about EXPLAIN PID, for other (status, query) I don't want to introduce new keyword, so there will be accessed via functions. But we can introduce psql commands

\qpid - query pid and \spid - status pid


- Is there a particular reason why we allocate slots for auxiliary
  processes and not just for backends (NumBackends)? Do we expect those
  auxiliary processes to ever use this API?

The introduced interprocess communication (we talked about this possibility week ago) can be used by any diagnostic extension - so aux processes can be interesting too.
 

- CleanupCmdStatusSlot seems needlessly complicated. I don't quite see
  the need for the second argument, or the internal slot variable. Why
  not to simply use the MyCmdStatusSlot directly?

- I also don't quite understand why we need to track css_pid for the
  slot? In what scenario will this actually matter?


I have to recheck it - but this is safeguard against to change process with same backendId.
 
- While being able to get EXPLAIN from the running process is nice,
  I'm especially interested in getting EXPLAIN ANALYZE to get insight
  into the progress of the execution. The are other ways to get the
  EXPLAIN, e.g. by opening a different connection and actually running
  it (sure, the plan might have changed since then), but currently
  there's no way to get insight into the progress.

It can be pretty nice feature. I though about it - as next step of this feature. But I have not idea how it is complex task - maybe not too much. 
 

  From the thread I get the impression that Oleksandr also finds this
  useful - correct? What are the plans in this direction?

  ISTM we need at least two things for that to work:

  (a) Ability to enable instrumentation on all queries (effectively
      what auto_explain allows), otherwise we can't get EXPLAIN ANALYZE
      on the queries later. But auto_explain is an extension, so that
      does not seem as a good match if this is supposed to be in core.
      In that case a separate GUC seems appropriate.

If described functionality will be implemented, then auto_explain extension will be very thin envelop - I don't see any reason, why it should not be integrated to core.
 

  (b) Being able to run the InstrEnd* methods repeatedly - the initial
      message in this thread mentions issues with InstrEndLoop for
      example. So perhaps this is non-trivial.

- And finally, I think we should really support all existing EXPLAIN
  formats, not just text. We need to support the other formats (yaml,
  json, xml) if we want to use the EXPLAIN PID approach, and it also
  makes the plans easier to process by additional tools.

surely - there is not any reason why not.

Regards

Pavel
 


regards

--
Tomas Vondra                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Double linking MemoryContext children
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing the size of BufferTag & remodeling forks