| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
| Cc: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add WAL read stats to pg_stat_wal |
| Date: | 2023-02-20 05:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20230220.142139.1342228878531675049.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 16 Feb 2023 11:11:38 -0800, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in
> I wonder if we should keep the checkpointer around for longer. If we have
> checkpointer signal postmaster after it wrote the shutdown checkpoint,
> postmaster could signal walsenders to shut down, and checkpointer could do
> some final work, like writing out the stats.
> I suspect this could be useful for other things as well. It's awkward that we
> don't have a place to put "just before shutting down" type tasks. And
> checkpointer seems well suited for that.
I totally agree that it will be useful, but I'm not quite sure how
checkpointer would be able to let postmaster know about that state
without requiring access to shared memory.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-02-20 05:33:22 | Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes? |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-02-20 04:52:48 | Re: DSA failed to allocate memory |