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
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 ..." |