Re: Move wal_buffers_full to WalUsage (and report it in pgss/explain)

From: Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Move wal_buffers_full to WalUsage (and report it in pgss/explain)
Date: 2025-02-11 12:30:09
Message-ID: 298b59c9-ae18-41d4-a426-189c5a13b907@tantorlabs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Thank you for your work!

1. Perhaps In EXPLAIN you forget to check that usage->wal_buffers_full > 0:

if ((usage->wal_records > 0) || (usage->wal_fpi > 0) ||
(usage->wal_bytes > 0))

2. I have a small suggestion for pg_stat_statements: would it make sense
to move wal_buffers_full next to wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes?
This way, all WAL-related information would be grouped together.

--
Best regards,
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nisha Moond 2025-02-11 13:36:05 Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2025-02-11 12:23:20 Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression