Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 07:32:20
Message-ID: aQBxhJ-XDDcku9V8@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 06:36:01PM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote:
> Okay, since I'm not strongly attached to this idea, I've removed the
> 0003 patch for now.

The fact that we cannot access this information without a pg_waldump
or a pg_walinspect, which may not be available, and can be expensive,
is a deal-breaker for me.. Or we may not have a direct access to the
WAL segments.

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.

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() .
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
wal-num-fpi-simple.patch text/x-diff 3.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-10-28 07:55:49 Re: make -C src/test/isolation failure in index-killtuples due to btree_gist
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2025-10-28 07:15:59 Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream