| From: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal |
| Date: | 2025-10-28 10:33:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAOzEurSiSr+rusd0GzVy8Bt30QwLTK=ugVMnF6=5WhsSrukvvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 4:32 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Without the changes in instrument.c from patch 0002, patch 0001 that
> implements the basics would not work. So.. I have moved the changes
> of instrument.c to 0001, reordered the fields to be more consistent,
> did two bumps (catalog, stats file), simplified the docs, then applied
> the result.
Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for committing. I have
revised patch 0002, which adds wal_fpi_bytes to EXPLAIN (WAL).
> By the way, Kato-san, what do you think about the attached extra
> simplification? With the FPIs counted in bytes, I don't see much a
> point in passing around the number of FPIs generated from
> XLogRecordAssemble() to XLogInsertRecord() .
I investigated previous discussions and found [0]. This thread
mentioned that XLogInsert() calls XLogRecordAssemble() multiple times
in its do-while loop, so the value might be invalid.
Based on the discussion above, it seems my previous patch also has the
same issue.
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200329121944.GA79261%40nol
--
Best regards,
Shinya Kato
NTT OSS Center
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0002-Expose-WAL-FPI-byte-totals-in-EXPLAIN.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Jones | 2025-10-28 10:46:41 | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_trigger_ddl() to retrieve the CREATE TRIGGER statement |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-10-28 10:31:23 | Re: Bug in pg_stat_statements |