Re: WAL usage calculation patch

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-04-18T20:41:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Change the display of WAL usage statistics in Explain.

  2. Cosmetic fixups for WAL usage work.

  3. Allow parallel create index to accumulate buffer usage stats.

  4. Allow autovacuum to log WAL usage statistics.

  5. Add the option to report WAL usage in EXPLAIN and auto_explain.

  6. Allow pg_stat_statements to track WAL usage statistics.

  7. Add infrastructure to track WAL usage.

  8. Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output, take two.

  9. Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output.

  10. Allow parallel vacuum to accumulate buffer usage.

  11. Allow pg_stat_statements to track planning statistics.

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 05:39:35PM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:45 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > On 2020-04-14 05:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > Peter E, others, any suggestions on how to move forward?  I think here
> > > > we should follow the rule "follow the style of nearby code" which in
> > > > this case would be to have one space after each field as we would like
> > > > it to be closer to the "Buffers" format.  It would be good if we have
> > > > a unified format among all Explain stuff but we might not want to
> > > > change the existing things and even if we want to do that it might be
> > > > a broader/bigger change and we should do that as a PG14 change.  What
> > > > do you think?
> > >
> > > If looks like shortening to fpw= and using one space is the easiest way
> > > to solve this issue.
> > >
> >
> > I am fine with this approach and will change accordingly.  I will wait
> > for a few days (3-4 days) to see if someone shows up with either an
> > objection to this or with a better idea for the display of WAL usage
> > information.
> 
> That was also my preferred alternative.  PFA a patch for that.  I also
> changed to "fpw" for the non textual output for consistency.

Should capitalize at least the non-text one ?  And maybe the text one for
consistency ?

+               ExplainPropertyInteger("WAL fpw", NULL,                                                                                                                                              

And add the acronym to the docs:

$ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml:      number of records, number of full page writes and amount of WAL bytes

"..full page writes (FPW).."

Should we also change vacuumlazy.c for consistency ?

+                                                        _("WAL usage: %ld records, %ld full page writes, "
+                                                          UINT64_FORMAT " bytes"),

-- 
Justin