| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: per backend WAL statistics |
| Date: | 2025-02-05 10:31:13 |
| Message-ID: | Z6M98Y5dTQoqb3kO@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:22:55AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> So, wal_buffers_full has been introduced after the WalUsage structure was
> there but I don't see any reason in the emails as to why it's not in the WalUsage
> structure (I might have missed it though).
>
> I think that this proposal makes sense but would need a dedicated thread,
> thoughts?
Using a separate thread for a change like that makes sense to me. I
have to admit that the simplifications in terms of designs for what
we're discussing here makes such a change more valuable. Adding this
information to WalUsage is one thing. Showing it in EXPLAIN is a
second thing. Doing the former simplifies the patch you are proposing
here. We don't necessarily have to do the latter, but I don't see a
reason to not do it, either.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-02-05 11:03:25 | Re: Add isolation test template in injection_points for wait/wakeup/detach |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-02-05 10:22:55 | Re: per backend WAL statistics |