Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Anthonin Bonnefoy
Subject Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process
Date
Msg-id CAO6_XqrK3CZXKD4mMbmB=pYzXcyZxdWqpT45__fyTzLnriyrMg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process  ("Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:33 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,

On 2023-01-11 10:29:06 +0100, Anthonin Bonnefoy wrote:
> Currently, the Checkpointer process only reports SLRU statistics at server
> shutdown, leading to delayed statistics for SLRU flushes. This patch adds a
> flush of SLRU stats to the end of checkpoints.

Hm. I wonder if we should do this even earlier, by the
pgstat_report_checkpointer() calls in CheckpointWriteDelay().

I'm inclined to move the pgstat_report_wal() and pgstat_report_slru() calls
into pgstat_report_checkpointer() to avoid needing to care about all the
individual places.
That would make sense. I've created a new patch with everything moved in pgstat_report_checkpointer().
I did split the checkpointer flush in a pgstat_flush_checkpointer() function as it seemed more readable. Thought? 
 
> @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ CheckpointerMain(void)
>               /* Report pending statistics to the cumulative stats system */
>               pgstat_report_checkpointer();
>               pgstat_report_wal(true);
> +             pgstat_report_slru(true);

Why do we need a force parameter if all callers use it?
Good point. I've written the same signature as pgstat_report_wal but there's no need for the nowait parameter. 
 
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: Lazy allocation of pages required for verifying FPI consistency
Next
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix condition in shm_toc and remove unused function shm_toc_freespace.