From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com" <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Show WAL write and fsync stats in pg_stat_io |
Date: | 2023-11-21 00:26:00 |
Message-ID: | ZVv5GFz5B1ag23Wx@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 05:43:17PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> Yes, the timings for the writes and the syncs should work. Another
> question I have in mind is the pg_stat_reset_shared() function. When
> we call it with 'io' it will reset pg_stat_wal's timings and when we
> call it with 'wal' it won't reset them, right?
pg_stat_reset_shared() with a target is IMO a very edge case, so I'm
OK with the approach of resetting timings in pg_stat_wal even if 'io'
was implied because pg_stat_wal would feed partially from pg_stat_io.
I'd take that as a side-cost in favor of compatibility while making
the stats gathering cheaper overall. I'm OK as well if people
counter-argue on this point, though that would mean to keep entirely
separate views with duplicated fields that serve the same purpose,
impacting all deployments because it would make the stats gathering
heavier for all.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alena Rybakina | 2023-11-21 00:50:15 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-11-21 00:10:23 | Re: Hide exposed impl detail of wchar.c |