Horton

Re: WAL usage calculation patch

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.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>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-04-28T02:08:57Z
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 Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:35:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >>>  The internal symbol for the WAL record is
> > >>> XLOG_FPI and xlogdesc.c prints it as "FPI".
> > >
> > > Julien, Peter, others do you have any opinion here?  I think it is
> > > better if we decide on one of FPW or FPI and make the changes at all
> > > places for this patch.
> >
> > It seems to me that Peter is right here.  A full-page write is the
> > action to write a full-page image, so if you consider only a way to
> > define the static data of a full-page and/or a quantity associated to
> > it, we should talk about full-page images.
>

Fair enough, if more people want full-page image terminology in this
context then we can do that.

> I agree with that definition.  I can send a cleanup patch if there's
> no objection.
>

Okay, feel free to send the patch.  Thanks for taking the initiative
to write a patch for this.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com