On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 5:13 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Andres,
> On 2026-02-23 13:30:44 +0100, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> > > > but I think having it in PgStat_BktypeIO is not great. This makes
> > > > PgStat_IO 30k*BACKEND_NUM_TYPES bigger, or ~ 0.5MB. Having a stats snapshot
> > > > be half a megabyte bigger for no reason seems too wasteful.
> > >
> > > Yea, that's not awesome.
> >
> > Guys, question, could You please explain me what are the drawbacks of having
> > this semi-big (internal-only) stat snapshot of 0.5MB? I'm struggling to
> > understand two things:
> > a) 0.5MB is not a lot those days (ok my 286 had 1MB in the day ;))
>
> I don't really agree with that, I guess. And even if I did, it's one thing to
> use 0.5MB when you actually use it, it's quite another when most of that
> memory is never used.
>
>
> With the patch, *every* backend ends up with a substantially larger
> pgStatLocal. Before:
>
> nm -t d --size-sort -r -S src/backend/postgres|head -n20|less
> (the second column is the decimal size, third the type of the symbol)
>
> 0000000004131808 0000000000297456 r yy_transition
> ...
> 0000000003916352 0000000000054744 r UnicodeDecompMain
> 0000000021004896 0000000000052824 B pgStatLocal
> 0000000003850592 0000000000040416 r unicode_categories
> ...
>
> after:
> 0000000023220512 0000000000329304 B pgStatLocal
> 0000000018531648 0000000000297456 r yy_transition
> ...
>
> And because pgStatLocal is zero initialized data, it'll be on-demand-allocated
> in every single backend (whereas e.g. yy_transition is read-only shared). So
> you're not talking a single time increase, you're multiplying it by the numer
> of active connections
>
> Now, it's true that most backend won't ever touch pgStatLocal. However, most
> backends will touch Pending[Backend]IOStats, which also increased noticably:
>
> before:
> 0000000021060960 0000000000002880 b PendingIOStats
> 0000000021057792 0000000000002880 b PendingBackendStats
>
> after:
> 0000000023568416 0000000000018240 b PendingIOStats
> 0000000023549888 0000000000018240 b PendingBackendStats
>
>
> Again, I think some increase here doesn't have to be fatal, but increasing
> with mainly impossible-to-use memory seems just too much waste to mee.
>
>
> This also increases the shared-memory usage of pgstats: Before it used ~300kB
> on a small system. That nearly doubles with this patch. But that's perhaps
> less concerning, given it's per-system, rather than per-backend memory usage.
>
>
>
> > b) how does it affect anything, because testing show it's not?
>
> Which of your testing would conceivably show the effect? The concern here
> isn't really performance, it's that it increases our memory usage, which you'd
> only see having an effect if you are tight on memory or have a workload that
> is cache sensitive.
>
Oh ok, now I get understand the problem about pgStatLocal properly,
thanks for detailed
explanation! (but I'm somewhat I'm still lost a little in the woods of
pgstat infra). Anyway, I
agree that PgStat_IO started to be way too big especially when the
pg_stat_io(_histogram)
views wouldn't be really accessed.
How about the attached v6-0002? It now dynamically allocates PgStat_IO
memory to avoid
the memory cost (only allocated if pgstat_io_snapshot_cb() is used).Is
that the right path? And
if so, perhaps it should allocate it from mxct
pgStatLocal.snapshot.context instead?
-J.
