Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190730211759.zqzt7xfchvmuja4i@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: idea: log_statement_sample_rate - bottom limit for sampling (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:43:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I've started reviewing this patch, thinking that maybe I could get it >> committed as it's marked as RFC. In general I agree with having this >> fuature, but I think we need to rethink the GUC because the current >> approach is just confusing. >> ... >> What I think we should do instead is to use two minimum thresholds. >> 1) log_min_duration_sample - enables sampling of commands, using the >> existing GUC log_statement_sample_rate >> 2) log_min_duration_statement - logs all commands exceeding this >> I think this is going to be much easier for users to understand. > >I agree with Tomas' idea. > >> The one difference between those approaches is in how they work with >> existing current settings. That is, let's say you have >> log_min_duration_statement = 1000 >> log_statement_sample_rate = 0.01 >> then no queries below 1000ms will be logged, and 1% of longer queries >> will be sampled. And with the original config (as proposed in v3 of the >> patch), this would still work the same way. >> With the new approach (two min thresholds) it'd behave differently, >> because we'd log *all* queries longer than 1000ms (not just 1%). And >> whether we'd sample any queries (using log_statement_sample_rate) would >> depend on how we'd pick the default value for the other threshold. > >Well, we do not need to have a backwards-compatibility problem >here, because we have yet to release a version containing >log_statement_sample_rate. I do not think it's too late to decide >that v12's semantics for that are broken, and either revert that >patch in v12, or back-patch a fix to make it match this idea. > I'm willing to try fixing this to salvage the feature for v12. The question is how would that fix look like - IMO we'd need to introduce the new threshold GUC, essentially implementing what this thread is about. It's not a complex patch, but it kinda flies in the face of feature freeze. OTOH if we call it a fix ... The patch itself is not that complicated - attached is a WIP version, (particularly) the docs need more work. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: