Re: Proposal: Progressive explain
| От | Rafael Thofehrn Castro |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proposal: Progressive explain |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAG0ozMo4eaJJqqiHP7dHXm=u8vK-qqxo5Q1DVu=amHisZiX5_g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Proposal: Progressive explain (Rafael Thofehrn Castro <rafaelthca@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Proposal: Progressive explain
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Implementation of the new GUC progressive_explain_min_duration was done with
timeouts. The timeout callback function is used to initialize the progressive
explain.
There is a catch to this implementation. In thread https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/d68c3ae31672664876b22d2dcbb526d2%40postgrespro.ru
where torikoshia proposes logging of query plans it was raised concerns about
logging plans in the CFI, a sensible part of the code. So torikoshia implemented
a smart workaround consisting in adjusting the execProcNode wrapper of all nodes
so that the plan printing can be done there.
I'm not sure if this same concern applies to timeout callbacks so I also implemented
a second version of the latest patch that uses that execProcNode wrapper strategy.
The wrapper code was implemented by torikoshia (torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com), so
adding the credits here.
Did additional benchmarks and found issues with the patch that doesn't do execProcNode
wrapping. There are sporadic crashes with double free or corruption (top)
So making the patch that uses the wrapper the current one. Again, giving the credits to
torikoshia as being the owner of that section of the code.
Rafael.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: