| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Restrict data checksums entries in pg_stat_io |
| Date: | 2026-07-17 11:20:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGw0_EWvACZgY2+3kikdbgS1F=NmP+vbQhD5roDE3MGDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 5:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jul 2026, at 19:13, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Both the launcher and the worker use table_beginscan_catalog(), which
> > can select BAS_BULKREAD when scanning large catalogs, i.e., pg_database
> > for the launcher and pg_class for the worker. As a result, seems their
> > I/O can be reported under the bulkread context.
>
> Interesting, I didn't realize that any catalog read could use bulkread but it
> clearly makes sense.
>
> > So I've updated the patch to keep relation/bulkread for both data checksums
> > processes. Patch attached.
>
> +1
Thanks for the review! I've pushed the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2026-07-17 11:22:37 | Re: Batching in executor |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-07-17 11:13:31 | Re: Restore check_mut_excl_opts, usage in pg_restore and pg_dumpall |