From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill(dot)bychik(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
Date: | 2020-03-31 06:53:17 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J2OtmkXH266NX8y=fS2BmGiS2DBx2HE_HGHC49Gxo4=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:14 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:52:38PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think the right place to compute this information is
> > XLogRecordAssemble even though we update it at the place where you
> > have it in the patch. You can probably compute that in local
> > variables and then transfer to pgWalUsage in XLogInsertRecord. I am
> > fine if you can think of some other way but the current patch doesn't
> > seem correct to me.
>
> My previous approach was indeed totally broken. v8 attached which hopefully
> will be ok.
>
This is better. Few more comments:
1. The point (c) from my previous email doesn't seem to be fixed
properly. Basically, the record data is only attached with FPW in
some particular cases like where REGBUF_KEEP_DATA is set, but the
patch assumes it is always set.
2.
+ /* Report a full page imsage constructed for the WAL record */
+ *num_fpw += 1;
Typo. /imsage/image
3. We need to enhance the patch to cover WAL usage for parallel
vacuum and parallel create index based on Sawada-San's latest patch[1]
which fixed the case for buffer usage.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-03-31 07:10:47 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-03-31 06:51:44 | Re: INSERT ... OVERRIDING USER VALUE vs GENERATED ALWAYS identity columns |