From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-04-08 03:06:34 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Kj+m3Jtp0aT-P3V78StZomtV1w4Q2SPXydDQ9=1r5Nyg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-04-07 04:12, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:01 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> I noticed in some of the screenshots that were tweeted that for example in
> >>>
> >>> WAL: records=1 bytes=56
> >>>
> >>> there are two spaces between pieces of data. This doesn't match the rest of
> >>> the EXPLAIN output. Can that be adjusted?
> >>
> >> We talked about that here:
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200402054120.GC14618%40telsasoft.com
> >>
> >
> > Yeah. Just to brief here, the main reason was that one of the fields
> > (full page writes) already had a single space and then we had prior
> > cases as mentioned in Justin's email [1] where we use two spaces which
> > lead us to decide using two spaces in this case.
>
> We also have existing cases for the other way:
>
> actual time=0.050..0.052
> Buffers: shared hit=3 dirtied=1
>
Buffers case is not the same because 'shared' is used for 'hit',
'read', 'dirtied', etc. However, I think it is arguable.
> The cases mentioned by Justin are not formatted in a key=value format,
> so it's not quite the same, but it also raises the question why they are
> not.
>
> Let's figure out a way to consolidate this without making up a third format.
>
Sure, I think my intention is to keep the format of WAL stats as close
to Buffers stats as possible because both depict I/O and users would
probably be interested to check/read both together. There is a point
to keep things in a format so that it is easier for someone to parse
but I guess as these as fixed 'words', it shouldn't be difficult
either way and we should give more weightage to consistency. Any
suggestions?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-08 03:25:57 | Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2020-04-08 03:06:21 | Re: Use compiler intrinsics for bit ops in hash |