| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: per backend WAL statistics |
| Date: | 2025-02-17 07:59:26 |
| Message-ID: | Z7LsXq7AAnipA6BN@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:25:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 06:59:40AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > There is still something that would simplify what is done here: it's the
> > "the elimination of the write & sync columns for pg_stat_wal" mentioned in [2].
>
> Yeah, still you cannot just remove them because the data tracked in
> pg_stat_io is not entirely the same, right?
I think that we can just remove them. They are tracked and incremented at the
exact same places in issue_xlog_fsync() and XLogWrite(). What differs is the
"bytes" (as pg_stat_wal.wal_bytes somehow "focus" on the wal records size while
the pg_stat_io's unit is the wal_block_size) and we keep them in both places.
Also it looks like we can get rid of PendingWalStats...
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2025-02-17 08:07:54 | Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-02-17 07:25:46 | Re: per backend WAL statistics |