Re: Monitoring gaps in XLogWalRcvWrite() for the WAL receiver
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Monitoring gaps in XLogWalRcvWrite() for the WAL receiver |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Z8l8IIm0bezG0v1W@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Monitoring gaps in XLogWalRcvWrite() for the WAL receiver (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:12:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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: > >> Perhaps there's a point in backpatching a portion of what's in the > >> attached patch (the wait event?), but I am not planning to bother much > >> with the stable branches based on the lack of complaints. > > > > 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. > > Hmm, not exactly actually. I've missed that ff99918c625a mentions > that WAL receiver was discarded on purpose, but this was still when > pgstats was not in shared memory and still file-based. We scale much > better now. It is not that difficult to make XLogWrite() hot enough > that it would trigger a lot of calls of pgstat_count_io_op_time() per > ms, either, like the WAL receiver, so as long as the timings are > behind track_wal_io_timing we're fine. > > Let's do this at the end, without a backpatch. At least we'll be anle > to get better IO metrics for replication setups. Good catch about the comment in ff99918c625a, so yeah I think it makes sense to not backpatch then. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: