On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 2:56 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> It does actually make things harder - what if somebody added a
> pgstat_report_activity() somewhere between the call? It would suddenly get
> lost after the second "initialization". Actually, the proposed patch already
> has weird, externally visible, consequences - the application name is set,
> then suddenly becomes unset, then is set again.
Oh... I think that alone is enough to change my mind; I neglected the
effects of that little pgstat_report_appname() stinger...
> Additionally PGSTAT_BEGIN_WRITE_ACTIVITY() would already happen twice if you
> initialize twice...
Sure. I was just trying not to introduce that to _all_ backend code
paths, but it sounds like that's not a concern. (Plus, it turns out to
be four calls, due again to the application_name reporting...)
> That doesn't seem like a reason to just initialize twice to me. If you have
> one initialization step that properly initializes everything to a minimal
> default state, you then can have granular functions that set up the user,
> database, SSL, GSS information separately.
I will start work on that then (unless Michael has already beaten me to it?).
> But more importantly, because of not having nesting, adding one "coarse" "wait
> event" means that anyone adding a wait event at a finer grade suddenly needs
> to be aware of all the paths that could lead to the execution of the new
> code and change all of them to not use the wait event anymore. It imposes a
> tax on measuring actual "out of postgres" wait events.
>
> One very useful wait event would be for memory allocations that hit the
> kernel. Those can take a fairly long time, because they might need to write
> dirty buffers to disk before there is enough free memory. Now imagine that we
> redefine the system memory allocator (or just postgres') so that all memory
> allocations from the kernel use a wait event. Now suddenly all that code that
> uses "coarse" wait events suddenly has a *rare* path - because most of the time
> we can carve memory out of a larger OS level memory allocation - where wait
> events would be nested.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I will plumb these down as far as I can.
Thanks very much!
--Jacob
