| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage |
| Date: | 2026-04-05 18:22:25 |
| Message-ID: | 59452d80-0a86-4872-a351-062a057e74f4@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/04/2026 15:31, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> Heikki, your further review is very welcome, if you have the time.
> It'd also be great if you could review the README.instrument (now in
> v13/0008) to see if that makes sense to you.
I don't have very substantial comments to make, an haven't had a chance
to review the latest patch, but I did read your replies. I think I
understand the stack vs. tree model now and why it is the way it is, but
I still find it pretty confusing and I don't know what to about it.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2026-04-05 18:24:35 | Re: Duplicate RequestNamedLWLocktranche() names and test_lwlock_tranches improvements |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-04-05 18:13:51 | Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage |