Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
Date: 2020-09-04 03:42:31
Message-ID: 4522ffe8-d610-09d3-1725-5a03b2ab6c04@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020/09/04 11:50, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
>>> I changed the view name from pg_stat_walwrites to pg_stat_walwriter.
>>> I think it is better to match naming scheme with other views like
>> pg_stat_bgwriter,
>>> which is for bgwriter statistics but it has the statistics related to backend.
>>
>> I prefer the view name pg_stat_walwriter for the consistency with
>> other view names. But we also have pg_stat_wal_receiver. Which
>> makes me think that maybe pg_stat_wal_writer is better for
>> the consistency. Thought? IMO either of them works for me.
>> I'd like to hear more opinons about this.
>
> I think pg_stat_bgwriter is now a misnomer, because it contains the backends' activity. Likewise, pg_stat_walwriter leads to misunderstanding because its information is not limited to WAL writer.
>
> How about simply pg_stat_wal? In the future, we may want to include WAL reads in this view, e.g. reading undo logs in zheap.

Sounds reasonable.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2020-09-04 04:53:24 Re: history file on replica and double switchover
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2020-09-04 03:21:37 Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file