5 Commits (0f4f45772c5a87ca2f228ee3bea36d313dca0b51)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Michael Paquier	4b203d499c	pg_buffercache: Add pg_buffercache_os_pages ... ba2a3c2302 has added a way to check if a buffer is spread across multiple pages with some NUMA information, via a new view pg_buffercache_numa that depends on pg_buffercache_numa_pages(), a SQL function. These can only be queried when support for libnuma exists, generating an error if not. However, it can be useful to know how shared buffers and OS pages map when NUMA is not supported or not available. This commit expands the capabilities around pg_buffercache_numa: - pg_buffercache_numa_pages() is refactored as an internal function, able to optionally process NUMA. Its SQL definition prior to this commit is still around to ensure backward-compatibility with v1.6. - A SQL function called pg_buffercache_os_pages() is added, able to work with or without NUMA. - The view pg_buffercache_numa is redefined to use pg_buffercache_os_pages(). - A new view is added, called pg_buffercache_os_pages. This ignores NUMA for its result processing, for a better efficiency. The implementation is done so as there is no code duplication between the NUMA and non-NUMA views/functions, relying on one internal function that does the job for all of them. The module is bumped to v1.7. Author: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Mircea Cadariu <cadariu.mircea@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/Z/fFA2heH6lpSLlt@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal	2 months ago
Andres Freund	dcf7e1697b	Add pg_buffercache_evict_{relation,all} functions ... In addition to the added functions, the pg_buffercache_evict() function now shows whether the buffer was flushed. pg_buffercache_evict_relation(): Evicts all shared buffers in a relation at once. pg_buffercache_evict_all(): Evicts all shared buffers at once. Both functions provide mechanism to evict multiple shared buffers at once. They are designed to address the inefficiency of repeatedly calling pg_buffercache_evict() for each individual buffer, which can be time-consuming when dealing with large shared buffer pools. (e.g., ~477ms vs. ~2576ms for 16GB of fully populated shared buffers). These functions are intended for developer testing and debugging purposes and are available to superusers only. Minimal tests for the new functions are included. Also, there was no test for pg_buffercache_evict(), test for this added too. No new extension version is needed, as it was already increased this release by ba2a3c2302. Author: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> Reviewed-by: Aidar Imamov <a.imamov@postgrespro.ru> Reviewed-by: Joseph Koshakow <koshy44@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAN55FZ0h_YoSqqutxV6DES1RW8ig6wcA8CR9rJk358YRMxZFmw%40mail.gmail.com	9 months ago
Tom Lane	f3fa31327e	Add pg_buffercache_usage_counts() to contrib/pg_buffercache. ... It was pointed out that pg_buffercache_summary()'s report of the overall average usage count isn't that useful, and what would be more helpful in many cases is to report totals for each possible usage count. Add a new function to do it like that. Since pg_buffercache 1.4 is already new for v16, we don't need to create a new extension version; we'll just define this as part of 1.4. Nathan Bossart Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20230130233040.GA2800702@nathanxps13	3 years ago
Andres Freund	2589434ae0	pg_buffercache: Add pg_buffercache_summary() ... Using pg_buffercache_summary() is significantly cheaper than querying pg_buffercache and summarizing in SQL. Author: Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> Reviewed-by: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> Reviewed-by: Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAGPVpCQAXYo54Q%3D8gqBsS%3Du0uk9qhnnq4%2B710BtUhUisX1XGEg%40mail.gmail.com	3 years ago
Tom Lane	be39d88934	Add regression test coverage for contrib/pg_buffercache. ... We can't check the output of this view very closely without creating portability headaches, but we can make sure that the number of rows is as-expected. In any case, this is sufficient to exercise all the C code within, which is a lot better than the 0% coverage we had before. DongWook Lee Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAAcByaLCHGJB7qAENEcx9D09UL=w4ma+yijwF_-1MSqQZ9wK6Q@mail.gmail.com	3 years ago