Re: buildfarm logging versus embedded nulls
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: buildfarm logging versus embedded nulls |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16061.1268431908@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: buildfarm logging versus embedded nulls (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: buildfarm logging versus embedded nulls
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Still meditating on this ... and it strikes me that the pgstat.c code >> is really uncommunicative about problems. In particular, >> pgstat_read_statsfile_timestamp and pgstat_read_statsfile don't complain >> at all about being unable to read a stats file. > Yeah, I had the same thought. OK, I'll add some logging. >> Lastly, backend_read_statsfile is designed to send an inquiry message >> every time through the loop, ie, every 10 msec. This is said to be in >> case the stats collector drops one. But is this enough to flood the >> collector and make things worse? I wonder if there should be some >> backoff there. > I also think the autovacuum worker minimum timestamp may be playing > games with the retry logic too. Maybe a worker is requesting a new file > continuously because pgstat is not able to provide one before the > deadline is past, and thus overloading it. I still think that 500ms is > too much for a worker, but backing off all the way to 10ms seems too > much. Maybe it should just be, say, 100ms. But we don't advance the deadline within the wait loop, so (in theory) a single requestor shouldn't be able to trigger more than one stats file update. I wonder though if an autovac worker could make many such requests over its lifespan ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: