Re: Introduce a new view for checkpointer related stats

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Introduce a new view for checkpointer related stats
Date: 2023-10-30 22:43:14
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:59:10AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> Oh, thanks for taking care of this. While at it, I noticed that
> there's no coverage for pg_stat_reset_shared('recovery_prefetch') and
> XLogPrefetchResetStats()
> Most of the recovery_prefetch code is covered with recovery/streaming
> related tests, but the reset stats part is missing. So, I've added
> coverage for it in the attached 0002.

Indeed, good catch. I didn't notice the hole in the coverage reports.
I have merged 0001 and 0002 together, and applied them as of

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-10-30 23:17:52 Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-10-30 22:16:30 Re: Why is DEFAULT_FDW_TUPLE_COST so insanely low?