Re: WAL usage calculation patch
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200406093334.GJ1206@nol обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL usage calculation patch (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:34:36PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:53 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:55:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > Here, we are not displaying Buffers related data, so why do we think > > > it is important to display WAL data? I see some point in displaying > > > Buffers and WAL data in a vacuum (verbose), but I feel it is better to > > > make a case for both the statistics together rather than just > > > displaying one and leaving other. I think the other change related to > > > autovacuum stats seems okay to me. > > > > One thing is that the amount of WAL, and more precisely FPW, is quite > > unpredictable wrt. vacuum and even more anti-wraparound vacuum, so this is IMHO > > a very useful metric. > > > > I agree but we already have a way via pg_stat_statements to find it if > the metric is so useful. > Agreed. > > > That being said I totally agree with you that both > > should be displayed. Should I send a patch to also expose it? > > > > I think this should be a separate proposal. Let's not add things > unless they are really essential. We can separately discuss of > enhancing vacuum verbose for Buffer and WAL usage stats and see if > others also find that information useful. I think you can send a > patch by removing the code I mentioned above if you agree. Thanks for > working on this. Thanks! v15 attached.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: