Re: Log connection establishment timings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 26/02/2025 08:41, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:46:19PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/02/26 6:36, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 3:23 PM Melanie Plageman
>>> <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing this! I have implemented your suggestion in attached v3.
> 
> Thanks for the new patch version!
> 

+1

>> +    /* Capture time Postmaster initiates fork for logging */
>> +    if (child_type == B_BACKEND)
>> +        INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(((BackendStartupData *) startup_data)->fork_time);
>>
>> When log_connections is enabled, walsender connections are also logged.
>> However, with the patch, it seems the connection time for walsenders isn't captured.
>> Is this intentional?
> 
> Good point. I'm tempted to say that it should also be, specially because a
> connection done as "psql replication=database" is of "walsender" backend type and
> would not be reported.
> 

Agreed.

>> With the current patch, when log_connections is enabled, the connection time is always
>> captured, and which might introduce performance overhead. No? Some users who enable
>> log_connections may not want this extra detail and want to avoid such overhead.
>> So, would it make sense to extend log_connections with a new option like "timing" and
>> log the connection time only when "timing" is specified?
> 
> +1, I also think it's a good idea to let users decide if they want the timing
> measurement overhead (and it's common practice with track_io_timing,
> track_wal_io_timing, the newly track_cost_delay_timing for example)
> 

track_connection_delay_timing ? I'm fine with this, but I'm a bit afraid 
that it will lead us to an awful lot of GUCs for simple things.

>> +                ereport(LOG,
>> +                        errmsg("backend ready for query. pid=%d. socket=%d. connection establishment times (ms):
total:%ld, fork: %ld, authentication: %ld",
 
>> +                               MyProcPid,
>> +                               (int) MyClientSocket->sock,
>>
>> Why expose the socket's file descriptor? I'm not sure how users would use that information.
>>
>>
>> Including the PID seems unnecessary since it's already available via log_line_prefix with %p?
> 
> Yeah, we would get things like:
> 
> [1111539] LOG:  connection received: host=[local]
> [1111539] LOG:  connection authenticated: user="postgres" method=trust
(/home/postgres/postgresql/pg_installed/pg18/data/pg_hba.conf:117)
> [1111539] LOG:  connection authorized: user=postgres database=postgres application_name=psql
> [1111539] LOG:  backend ready for query. pid=1111539. socket=9. connection establishment times (ms): total: 2, fork:
0,authentication: 0
 
> 
> I also wonder if "backend ready for query" is worth it. Maybe something like:
> 
> 2025-02-26 06:44:23.265 UTC [1111539] LOG:  connection establishment times (ms): total: 2, fork: 0, authentication:
0
> 
> would be good enough?
> 

Sounds definitely better to me.

> A few random comments:
> 
> === 1
> 
> +typedef struct ConnectionTiming
> +{
> +       instr_time      fork_duration;
> +       instr_time      auth_duration;
> +} ConnectionTiming;
> 
> As it's all about instr_time, I wonder if we could use an enum + array instead.
> That's probably just a matter of taste but that sounds more flexible to extend
> (should we want to add more timing in the future).
> 
> === 2
> 
> +ConnectionTiming conn_timing = {0};
> 
> There is no padding in ConnectionTiming and anyway we just access its fields
> so that's ok to initialize that way.
> 
> === 3
> 
> Add a few words in the log_connections GUC doc? (anyway we will have to if
> Fujii-san idea above about the timing is implemented)
> 
> === 4
> 
> +               /* Calculate total fork duration in child backend for logging */
> +               if (child_type == B_BACKEND)
> +               {
> +                       INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(conn_timing.fork_duration);
> +                       INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(conn_timing.fork_duration,
> +                                                               ((BackendStartupData *) startup_data)->fork_time);
> +               }
> +
>                  /* Close the postmaster's sockets */
>                  ClosePostmasterPorts(child_type == B_LOGGER);
> 
> @@ -618,6 +630,14 @@ SubPostmasterMain(int argc, char *argv[])
>          /* Read in the variables file */
>          read_backend_variables(argv[2], &startup_data, &startup_data_len);
> 
> +       /* Calculate total fork duration in child backend for logging */
> +       if (child_type == B_BACKEND)
> +       {
> +               INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(conn_timing.fork_duration);
> +               INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(conn_timing.fork_duration,
> +                               ((BackendStartupData *) startup_data)->fork_time);
> +       }
> 
> worth to add a helper function to avoid code duplication?
> 
> Regards,
> 


-- 
Guillaume Lelarge
Consultant
https://dalibo.com