Re: Fwd: [BUG]: the walsender does not update its IO statistics until it exits

Hi,
Moving the other two provides a more complete view of the settings. For
newcomers(like me) to the codebase, seeing all three related values in one
place helps avoid a narrow view of the settings.

But I am not sure that I understand the cons of this well.

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2025年3月19日周三 13:50写道：

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 02:26:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:53:16AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > > I think these two conditions are good too. In a busy system, they are
> met
> > > frequently, so the flush routine will be executed at least once every
> > > second. Conversely, when WAL generation is low, there's simply less
> data to
> > > record, and the flush frequency naturally decreases.
> >
> > Hmm, yeah, perhaps this is acceptable. The changes in pgstat.c seem
> > inconsistent, though, only moving the min interval while the max and
> > idle times stay around.
>
> That's right. OTOH that sounds weird to move the others 2: that would
> create
> wider visibility for them without real needs. That's not a big issue,
> but could impact extensions or friends that would start using those should
> we
> change their values in the future.
>

The current name of the min interval appears consistent within the context
of the surrounding code in this patch.

Another option could be to create a dedicated one in walsender.c but I'm not
> sure I like it more.
>
>