Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>,
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-09-04T03:42:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2020/09/04 11:50, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote: > From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> >>> I changed the view name from pg_stat_walwrites to pg_stat_walwriter. >>> I think it is better to match naming scheme with other views like >> pg_stat_bgwriter, >>> which is for bgwriter statistics but it has the statistics related to backend. >> >> I prefer the view name pg_stat_walwriter for the consistency with >> other view names. But we also have pg_stat_wal_receiver. Which >> makes me think that maybe pg_stat_wal_writer is better for >> the consistency. Thought? IMO either of them works for me. >> I'd like to hear more opinons about this. > > I think pg_stat_bgwriter is now a misnomer, because it contains the backends' activity. Likewise, pg_stat_walwriter leads to misunderstanding because its information is not limited to WAL writer. > > How about simply pg_stat_wal? In the future, we may want to include WAL reads in this view, e.g. reading undo logs in zheap. Sounds reasonable. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
Commits
-
Add pg_stat_wal statistics view.
- 8d9a935965f0 14.0 landed