Re: Fsync (flush) all inserted WAL records

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Fsync (flush) all inserted WAL records
Date: 2024-08-19 06:35:45
Message-ID: ZsLnwSN8bmhTT6hW@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 06:00:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Assuming the function has value, as you claim, I see no reason not to
> expose it similarly to pg_current_wal_*(). On top of that you will
> have to test-cover it anyway. The easiest way to do it will be to have
> an SQL-wrapper.

I cannot be absolutely without seeing a patch, but adding SQL
functions in this area is usually very useful for monitoring purposes
of external solutions.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2024-08-19 06:39:43 Re: Conflict detection and logging in logical replication
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-08-19 06:30:23 Re: Use read streams in pg_visibility