Hi,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 04:37:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 07:14:14AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:09:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Agreed that something in the lines of non-transaction update of the
> >> entries could be adapted in some cases, so +1 for the idea. I suspect
> >> that there would be cases where a single stats kind should be able to
> >> handle both transactional and non-transactional flush cases.
> >> Splitting that across two stats kinds would lead to a lot of
> >> duplication.
> >
> > One option could be to use 2 pending lists for the variables stats and 2 flush
> > callbacks for fixed stats. Thoughts?
>
> Hmm. I would have thought first about one pending area, and two
> callbacks for the variable-sized stats, called with a different
> timing because the stats to be flushed are the same aren't they? For
> example, if we are in a long analytical query, we would flush the IO
> stats periodically, reset the pending data, repeat/rinse periodically,
> and do a last round when we are done with the query in postgres.c.
>
> Do we really need a second callback by the way? It could be as well
> the same flush callback, with an option to mark stats kinds that allow
> a periodic flush. The trick is knowing where the new reports calls
> should happen. The executor is the primary target area.
>
> Or perhaps you think that the pending data of a stats kind could be
> different if a kind allows transactional and non-transactional
> flushes?
Yeah that was my thought: one stats kind could have metrics that are transactional
and some metrics that are non-transactional. This could be possible for
both variable and fixed stats, that's why I was thinking about having
2 pending lists for the variables stats and 2 flush callbacks for fixed stats.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
