From: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |
Date: | 2020-09-29 02:51:13 |
Message-ID: | 773b9bdcda306e4c3da3f7f491779878@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-29 11:43, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:39 AM Masahiro Ikeda
> <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-09-28 12:43, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
>> > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:11:23 +0530, Amit Kapila
>> >> <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
>> >> > One other thing that occurred to me today is can't we keep this as
>> >> > part of PgStat_GlobalStats? We can use pg_stat_reset_shared('wal'); to
>> >> > reset it. It seems to me this is a cluster-wide stats and somewhat
>> >> > similar to some of the other stats we maintain there.
>> >>
>> >> I like that direction, but PgStat_GlobalStats is actually
>> >> PgStat_BgWriterStats and cleard by a RESET_BGWRITER message.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah, I think if we want to pursue this direction then we probably
>> > need to have a separate message to set/reset WAL-related stuff. I
>> > guess we probably need to have a separate reset timestamp for WAL. I
>> > think the difference would be that we can have one structure to refer
>> > to global_stats instead of referring to multiple structures and we
>> > don't need to issue separate read/write calls but OTOH I don't see
>> > many disadvantages of the current approach as well.
>>
>> IIUC, if we keep wal stats as part of PgStat_GlobalStats,
>> don't we need to add PgStat_ArchiverStats and PgStat_SLRUStats
>> to PgStat_GlobalStats too?
>>
>
> I have given the idea for wal_stats because there is just one counter
> in that. I think you can just try to evaluate the merits of each
> approach and choose whichever you feel is good. This is just a
> suggestion, if you don't like it feel free to proceed with the current
> approach.
Thanks for your suggestion.
I understood that the point is that WAL-related stats have just one
counter now.
Since we may add some WAL-related stats like pgWalUsage.(bytes, records,
fpi),
I think that the current approach is good.
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | k.jamison@fujitsu.com | 2020-09-29 04:04:16 | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-29 02:48:17 | Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |