Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Change the display of WAL usage statistics in Explain.
- 69bfaf2e1de4 13.0 landed
-
Cosmetic fixups for WAL usage work.
- ef08ca113fe3 13.0 landed
-
Allow parallel create index to accumulate buffer usage stats.
- 5c71362174eb 13.0 landed
- f179e9f01b65 11.8 landed
- 13823ad3b012 12.3 landed
-
Allow autovacuum to log WAL usage statistics.
- b7ce6de93b59 13.0 landed
-
Add the option to report WAL usage in EXPLAIN and auto_explain.
- 33e05f89c53e 13.0 landed
-
Allow pg_stat_statements to track WAL usage statistics.
- 6b466bf5f2be 13.0 landed
-
Add infrastructure to track WAL usage.
- df3b181499b4 13.0 landed
-
Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output, take two.
- ce77abe63cfc 13.0 cited
-
Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output.
- ed7a5095716e 13.0 cited
-
Allow parallel vacuum to accumulate buffer usage.
- 3a5e22138a8d 13.0 landed
-
Allow pg_stat_statements to track planning statistics.
- 17e03282241c 13.0 cited
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:14 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > @@ -448,6 +449,7 @@ XLogInsert(RmgrId rmid, uint8 info) bool doPageWrites; XLogRecPtr fpw_lsn; XLogRecData *rdt; + int num_fpw = 0; /* * Get values needed to decide whether to do full-page writes. Since @@ -457,9 +459,9 @@ XLogInsert(RmgrId rmid, uint8 info) GetFullPageWriteInfo(&RedoRecPtr, &doPageWrites); rdt = XLogRecordAssemble(rmid, info, RedoRecPtr, doPageWrites, - &fpw_lsn); + &fpw_lsn, &num_fpw); - EndPos = XLogInsertRecord(rdt, fpw_lsn, curinsert_flags); + EndPos = XLogInsertRecord(rdt, fpw_lsn, curinsert_flags, num_fpw); } while (EndPos == InvalidXLogRecPtr); I think there are some issues in the num_fpw calculation. For some cases, we have to return from XLogInsert without inserting a record. Basically, we've to recompute/reassemble the same record. In those cases, num_fpw should be reset. Thoughts? -- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com