From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Monitoring gaps in XLogWalRcvWrite() for the WAL receiver |
Date: | 2025-03-05 12:28:23 |
Message-ID: | Z8hDZ6jJ69q0WxTd@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:04:44AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:35:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Also for sync? sync looks fine as issue_xlog_fsync() is being called in
> XLogWalRcvFlush(), no?
Yes, we're OK for the sync data aggregated in the WAL receiver on
HEAD, as mentioned below, not in the back-branches.
> We're not emitting some statistics, so I think that it's hard for users to
> complain about something they don't/can't see.
One would see idle data in pg_stat_wal on a standby, so the lack of
data could be annoying, but I'm perhaps the only one who noticed
that..
> Same logic as in XLogWrite() and I don't think there is a need for a
> dedicated wait event, so LGTM.
Thanks.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2025-03-05 12:52:40 | Re: doc: expand note about pg_upgrade's --jobs option |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-03-05 12:19:16 | Re: Add regression test checking combinations of (object,backend_type,context) in pg_stat_io |