From: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: per backend WAL statistics |
Date: | 2025-03-10 12:08:49 |
Message-ID: | CAN55FZ1idpJTyCDPMzbuXSD0UvxKETG652XyosHGJE5tLmKLLg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thank you for working on this!
I just started reading the code and have a couple of questions.
I think that every time we flush IO or WAL stats, we want(?) to flush
backend stats as well, so would it make sense to move
pgstat_flush_backend() calls to inside of pgstat_flush_io() and
pgstat_wal_flush_cb()? I see that backend statistics are not collected
for some of the backend types but that is already checked in the
pgstat_flush_backend() with pgstat_tracks_backend_bktype().
Also, is there a chance that wal_bytes gets incremented without
wal_records getting incremented? I searched the code and did not find
any example of that but I just wanted to be sure. If there is a case
like that, then pgstat_backend_wal_have_pending() needs to check
wal_bytes instead of wal_records.
--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-03-10 12:27:07 | Re: pg_attribute_noreturn(), MSVC, C11 |
Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-03-10 11:52:26 | Re: per backend WAL statistics |