RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size

On 2020-08-18 16:35, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> From: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
>> It's important to provide the metrics for tuning the size of WAL
>> buffers.
>> For now, it's lack of the statistics how often processes wait to write
>> WAL
>> because WAL buffer is full.
>>
>> If those situation are often occurred, WAL buffer is too small for the
>> workload.
>> DBAs must to tune the WAL buffer size for performance improvement.
>
> Yes, it's helpful to know if we need to enlarge the WAL buffer.
> That's why our colleague HariBabu proposed the patch. We'd be happy
> if it could be committed in some form.
>
>> There are related threads, but those are not merged.
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FF824F3.5090407@uptime.jp
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNx
>> pL8gXKYv1KST%2BvwJcFtCSCEySnA%40mail.gmail.com
>
> What's the difference between those patches? What blocked them from
> being committed?

Thanks for replying.

Since the above threads are not active now and those patches can't be
applied HEAD,
I made this thread. If it is better to reply the above thread, I will do
so.

If my understanding is correct, we have to measure the performance
impact first.
Do you know HariBabu is now trying to solve it? If not, I will try to
modify patches to apply HEAD.

Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION