Re: Move wal_buffers_full to WalUsage (and report it in pgss/explain)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Move wal_buffers_full to WalUsage (and report it in pgss/explain)
Date: 2025-02-14 06:02:51
Message-ID: Z67ci8ej9z3zLsnW@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 02:05:18PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> 2. I have a small suggestion for pg_stat_statements: would it make sense to
>> move wal_buffers_full next to wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes? This way,
>> all WAL-related information would be grouped together.
>
> I think I prefer to add it in "append" order. That way, that does not break
> queries that rely on ordinal numbers.

Not sure. FWIW, it makes sense to me to group them by "family" in
this case, as they would belong to the same instrument structure.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-02-14 06:24:22 Re: Move wal_buffers_full to WalUsage (and report it in pgss/explain)
Previous Message Peter Smith 2025-02-14 05:54:59 Re: Proposal: Filter irrelevant change before reassemble transactions during logical decoding