Re: Expose lock group leader pid in pg_stat_activity - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 9:08 AM Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>
> Le mer. 25 déc. 2019 à 19:30, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 7:03 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Guillaume (in Cc) recently pointed out [1] that it's currently not
>> > possible to retrieve the list of parallel workers for a given backend
>> > at the SQL level.  His use case was to develop a function in plpgsql
>> > to sample a given query wait event, but it's not hard to imagine other
>> > useful use cases for this information, for instance doing some
>> > analysis on the average number of workers per parallel query, or ratio
>> > of parallel queries.  IIUC parallel queries is for now the only user
>> > of lock group, so this should work just fine.
>> >
>> > I'm attaching a trivial patch to expose the group leader pid if any
>> > in pg_stat_activity.  Quick example of usage:
>> >
>> > =# SELECT query, leader_pid,
>> >   array_agg(pid) filter(WHERE leader_pid != pid) AS members
>> > FROM pg_stat_activity
>> > WHERE leader_pid IS NOT NULL
>> > GROUP BY query, leader_pid;
>> >        query       | leader_pid |    members
>> > -------------------+------------+---------------
>> >  select * from t1; |      28701 | {28728,28732}
>> > (1 row)
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] https://twitter.com/g_lelarge/status/1209486212190343168
>>
>> And I just realized that I forgot to update rule.out, sorry about
>> that.  v2 attached.
>
>
> So I tried your patch this morning, and it works really well.
>
> On a SELECT count(*), I got this:
>
> SELECT leader_pid, pid, wait_event_type, wait_event, state, backend_type FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE pid=111439 or
leader_pid=111439;
>
> ┌────────────┬────────┬─────────────────┬──────────────┬────────┬─────────────────┐
> │ leader_pid │  pid   │ wait_event_type │  wait_event  │ state  │  backend_type   │
> ├────────────┼────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────┼────────┼─────────────────┤
> │     111439 │ 111439 │ LWLock          │ WALWriteLock │ active │ client backend  │
> │     111439 │ 116887 │ LWLock          │ WALWriteLock │ active │ parallel worker │
> │     111439 │ 116888 │ IO              │ WALSync      │ active │ parallel worker │
> └────────────┴────────┴─────────────────┴──────────────┴────────┴─────────────────┘
> (3 rows)
>
> and this from a CREATE INDEX:
>
> ┌────────────┬────────┬─────────────────┬────────────┬────────┬─────────────────┐
> │ leader_pid │  pid   │ wait_event_type │ wait_event │ state  │  backend_type   │
> ├────────────┼────────┼─────────────────┼────────────┼────────┼─────────────────┤
> │     111439 │ 111439 │                 │            │ active │ client backend  │
> │     111439 │ 118775 │                 │            │ active │ parallel worker │
> └────────────┴────────┴─────────────────┴────────────┴────────┴─────────────────┘
> (2 rows)
>
> Anyway, it applies cleanly, it compiles, and it works. Documentation is available. So it looks to me it's good to go
:)

Thanks for the review Guillaume.  Double checking the doc, I see that
I made a copy/pasto mistake in the new field name.  Attached v3 should
be all good.