| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Pang <robertpang(at)google(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, Ritu Bhandari <mailritubhandari(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Purpose of wal_init_zero |
| Date: | 2025-01-24 15:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAMT0RQRLjftQ1M-PPAy8SxnyUr5GhuXNRRMct8YXzbSdVX0qFQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:18 PM Robert Pang <robertpang(at)google(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 12:05 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > If you have wal_recycle=true, this overhead will only be paid the first time a
> > WAL segment is used, of course, not after recycling.
>
> Today, our pg_stat_wal view [1] does not report the no. of WAL
> segments recycled. How about if we add a column to report it so users
> can track how many WAL segments are recycled vs. created over a period
> of time?
Maybe even add the full set of (recycled, created, deleted and
zero-filled) so we have a full picture.
And possible duplicate the set for "in the background" and "inline /
stalling the production work" for the operations where it makes sense
(created, zero-filled)
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/monitoring-stats.html#MONITORING-PG-STAT-WAL-VIEW
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-01-24 15:24:06 | Re: why -Fdance archive format option works with ./pg_restore but not with ./pg_dump? |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2025-01-24 15:20:03 | Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall |