| From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |
| Date: | 2020-08-21 02:53:42 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB2990A96CDC6D7FB133CF1BA4FE5B0@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
> I agree to expose the number of WAL write caused by full of WAL buffers.
> It's helpful when tuning wal_buffers size. Haribabu separated that number
> into two fields in his patch; one is the number of WAL write by backend,
> and another is by background processes and workers. But I'm not sure
> how useful such separation is. I'm ok with just one field for that number.
I agree with you. I don't think we need to separate the numbers for foreground processes and background ones. WAL buffer is a single resource. So "Writes due to full WAL buffer are happening. We may be able to boost performance by increasing wal_buffers" would be enough.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2020-08-21 03:08:44 | RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-08-21 02:20:33 | Re: Creating foreign key on partitioned table is too slow |