From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |
Date: | 2022-10-23 22:48:09 |
Message-ID: | CAOtHd0BkyGEXN6odK71=PZzK_TndbZkFstwgrtX-vA39KOpbuA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:31 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> - "repossession" is a very unintuitive name for me. If we want something like
> it, can't we just name it reuse_failed or such?
+1, I think "repossessed" is awkward. I think "reuse_failed" works,
but no strong opinions on an alternate name.
> - Wonder if the column names should be reads, writes, extends, etc instead of
> the current naming pattern
Why? Lukas suggested alignment with existing views like
pg_stat_database and pg_stat_statements. It doesn't make sense to use
the blks_ prefix since it's not all blocks, but otherwise it seems
like we should be consistent, no?
> > "freelist_acquired" is confusing for local buffers but I wanted to
> > distinguish between reuse/eviction of local buffers and initial
> > allocation. "freelist_acquired" seemed more fitting because there is a
> > clocksweep to find a local buffer and if it hasn't been allocated yet it
> > is allocated in a place similar to where shared buffers acquire a buffer
> > from the freelist. If I didn't count it here, I would need to make a new
> > column only for local buffers called "allocated" or something like that.
>
> I think you're making this too granular. We need to have more detail than
> today. But we don't necessarily need to catch every nuance.
In general I agree that coarser granularity here may be easier to use.
I do think the current docs explain what's going on pretty well,
though, and I worry if merging too many concepts will make that harder
to follow. But if a less detailed breakdown still communicates
potential problems, +1.
> > This seems not too bad at first, but if you consider that later we will
> > add other kinds of IO -- eg WAL IO or temporary file IO, we won't be
> > able to use these existing columns and will need to add even more
> > columns describing the exact behavior in those cases.
>
> I think it's clearly not the right direction.
+1, I think the existing approach makes more sense.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Виктория Шепард | 2022-10-23 23:24:38 | Re: Re[2]: Possible solution for masking chosen columns when using pg_dump |
Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2022-10-23 22:35:38 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |