| 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: | 2025-02-17 06:18:04 |
| Message-ID: | Z7LUnPUdVcGwYaj0@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 03:02:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.
Looked at the full set again, and in the PGSS patch I have finished by
grouping all the WAL fields together, like we do for the rest. In
EXPLAIN, we have other fields that use spaces rather than underscores,
see "actual time" for example, so I've done the same for buffers full.
Nothing much more to say, so I've applied the set. Now let's see what
happens for the WAL stats patch at backend level.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nisha Moond | 2025-02-17 06:20:41 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-17 06:03:56 | Re: Some read stream improvements |