Re: Monitoring time of fsyncing WALs
От | Konstantin Knizhnik |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Monitoring time of fsyncing WALs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00844779-f139-1c52-0fd9-4806b2ebd1c2@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Monitoring time of fsyncing WALs (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 29.06.2018 15:48, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:32:18PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: >>> I wonder why we are monitoring time of writing to WAL, but not time of >>> fsyncing WAL segments? >>> Is there are principle reason for it or just because nobody added it yet? >>> If so, please find very small patch which adding WAIT_EVENT_WAL_FSYNC event >>> type. >> Let's name it WAIT_EVENT_WAL_SYNC as it is more consistent with the >> other wait events of the same type, and also list the wait event >> alphabetically everywhere this is added. I have also reworded the >> documentation to be more consistent. >> >>> Our engineers in PgPro complain me that there is no information about time >>> spent in syncing WALs... >>> Unfortunately Postgres still is not able to aggregate this statistic. But at >>> least we have pg_wait_sampling extension for it: >>> https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling >> Complain justified. It is a bit too late for v11 I think though, so >> let's wait for v12 to open for business, and then I'll apply the patch >> at if there are no objections until then. > Are there other instances of fsync() that also need to be covered? > Syncing database files is already monitored (in mdsync and FileFlush). If we grep for pg_fsync occurrences in Postgres code, then the only place where pgstat_report_wait_start is not called before is issue_xlog_fsync in xlog.c -- Konstantin Knizhnik Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: