| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |
| Date: | 2020-10-13 05:05:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3411747.1602565530@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> prairiedog just failed in not-quite-the-same way, which reinforces the
> idea that this test is dependent on MAXALIGN, which determines physical
> tuple size. (I just checked the buildfarm, and the four active members
> that report MAXALIGN 4 during configure are florican, lapwing, locust,
> and prairiedog. Not sure about the MSVC critters though.) The
> spill_count number is different though, so it seems that that may not
> be the whole story.
Oh, and here comes lapwing:
- regression_slot | 1 | 12
+ regression_slot | 1 | 10
So if it weren't that prairiedog showed 11 not 10, we'd have a nice
neat it-depends-on-MAXALIGN theory. As is, I'm not sure what all
is affecting it, though MAXALIGN sure seems to be a component.
(locust seems to be AWOL at the moment, so I'm not holding my breath
for that one to report in.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-13 05:29:00 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-13 05:03:01 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |