Re: Wrong statistics for size of XLOG_SWITCH during pg_waldump.

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
Cc: andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, ahsan(dot)hadi(at)highgo(dot)ca
Subject: Re: Wrong statistics for size of XLOG_SWITCH during pg_waldump.
Date: 2020-10-15 08:38:09
Message-ID: 20201015.173809.2268763012141485395.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:32:10 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> At Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:56:02 +0800, "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca> wrote in
> > Thanks for all the suggestions.
> >
> > >Yeah. In its current shape, it means that only pg_waldump would be
> > >able to know this information. If you make this information part of
> > >xlogdesc.c, any consumer of the WAL record descriptions would be able
> > >to show this information, so it would provide a consistent output for
> > >any kind of tools.
> > I have change the implement, move some code into xlog_desc().
>
> Andres suggested that we don't need that description with per-record
> basis. Do you have a reason to do that? (For clarity, I'm not
> suggesting that you should reving it.)

Sorry. Maybe I deleted wrong letters in the "reving" above.

====
Andres suggested that we don't need that description with per-record
basis. Do you have a reason to do that? (For clarity, I'm not
suggesting that you should remove it.)
====

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-10-15 08:52:20 Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-10-15 08:37:35 Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."