Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
Date: 2021-07-27 00:48:00
Message-ID: 20210727004800.ctofuuxnd4prp4as@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-07-26 20:27:21 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation
> patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new
> field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal_init_interval,
> where the value is the minimum amount of time between reporting the
> number of WAL segments created since the last report?

Why not just make the number in log_checkpoints accurate? There's no
point in the current number, so we don't need to preserve it...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-07-27 00:50:59 Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
Previous Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-07-27 00:40:11 Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness