Horton

Re: WAL usage calculation patch

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.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>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-04-23T05:33:13Z
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 Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > Hi Justin,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Should capitalize at least the non-text one ?  And maybe the text one for
> > > > > consistency ?
> > > > >
> > > > > +               ExplainPropertyInteger("WAL fpw", NULL,
> > > >
> > > > I think we should keep both version consistent, whether lower or upper
> > > > case.  The uppercase version is probably more correct, but it's a
> > > > little bit weird to have it being the only upper case label in all
> > > > output, so I kept it lower case.
> >
> > I think we can keep upper-case for all non-text ones in case of WAL
> > usage, something like WAL Records, WAL FPW, WAL Bytes.  The buffer
> > usage seems to be following a similar convention.
> >
>
> The attached patch changed the non-text display format as mentioned.
> Let me know if you have any comments?

Assuming that we're fine using full page write(s) / FPW  rather than
full page image(s) / FPI (see previous mail), I'm fine with this
patch.