Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
Date: 2021-07-27 00:22:30
Message-ID: 4822e6b7-834d-ff99-a2ae-f0ff7434a8c4@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021/07/27 5:27, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation
> patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new
> field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal_init_interval,
> where the value is the minimum amount of time between reporting the
> number of WAL segments created since the last report?

You mean to introduce new GUC like log_wal_init_interval and that
the number of WAL files created since the last report will be logged
every that interval? But isn't it better and simpler to just expose
the accumulated number of WAL files created, in pg_stat_wal view
or elsewhere? If so, we can easily get to know the number of WAL files
created in every interval by checking the view and calculating the diff.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuro Yamada 2021-07-27 00:25:57 Re: list of extended statistics on psql (\dX)
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-07-26 23:53:52 Re: Some code cleanup for pgbench and pg_verifybackup