Re: log_checkpoints: count WAL segment creations from all processes

From: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: log_checkpoints: count WAL segment creations from all processes
Date: 2026-03-24 14:01:18
Message-ID: SY7PR01MB1092144EEC58DBDC5C306E972B648A@SY7PR01MB10921.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hi, Xuneng

On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 19:17, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi Zsolt,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 1:55 PM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> This is a simple patch, but shouldn't it include at least some basic
> tests verifying the new behavior?
>
> Thanks for looking into this. I've added a test for it. Please take a look.

Thanks for updating the patch. A few comments on v2:

1.
+ (The probes listed next fire in sequence during checkpoint processing.)
+ arg0 is the number of buffers written. arg1 is the total number of

These changes seem unnecessary. Additionally, there appears to be an
indentation issue.

2.
+ current = pg_atomic_read_u64(&XLogCtl->walSegmentsCreated);
+ CheckpointStats.ckpt_segs_added = (int)
+ (current - XLogCtl->walSegsCreatedLastCheckpoint);
+ XLogCtl->walSegsCreatedLastCheckpoint = current;

Is integer overflow a concern here? It seems unlikely in practice.

>
> --
> Best,
> Xuneng
>
> [4. text/x-diff; v2-0001-Count-WAL-segment-creations-by-all-processes-in-l.patch]...

--
Regards,
Japin Li
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., Ltd.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Geier 2026-03-24 14:09:15 Re: Add pg_stat_vfdcache view for VFD cache statistics
Previous Message Yugo Nagata 2026-03-24 14:01:10 Re: Allow to collect statistics on virtual generated columns