| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill(dot)bychik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: User Interface for WAL usage data |
| Date: | 2020-04-06 16:34:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20200406163420.GE2228@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 08:29:31AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > "full page records" seems to be showing the number of full page
> > > images, not the record having full page images.
> >
> > I am not sure what exactly is a difference but it is the records
> > having full page images. Julien correct me if I am wrong.
> Obviously previous complaints about the meaning and parsability of
> "full page writes" should be addressed here for consistency.
There's a couple places that say "full page image records" which I think is
language you were trying to avoid. It's the number of pages, not the number of
records, no ? I see explain and autovacuum say what I think is wanted, but
these say the wrong thing? Find attached slightly larger patch.
$ git grep 'image record'
contrib/pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.c: int64 wal_num_fpw; /* # of WAL full page image records generated */
doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml: number of records, number of full page image records and amount of WAL
--
Justin
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-doc-WAL-usage.patch | text/x-diff | 2.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2020-04-06 16:39:41 | Re: Index Skip Scan |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-04-06 16:31:09 | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |