RE: Wrong statistics for size of XLOG_SWITCH during pg_waldump.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 11:22 AM
>To: Shinya11.Kato@nttdata.com; david@pgmasters.net; movead.li@highgo.ca
>Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; andres@anarazel.de; michael@paquier.xyz;
>ahsan.hadi@highgo.ca; horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
>Subject: Re: Wrong statistics for size of XLOG_SWITCH during pg_waldump.
>
>
>
>On 2021/03/19 18:27, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/03/19 15:06, Shinya11.Kato@nttdata.com wrote:
>>>>>> But 0 value maybe looks strange, so in current version I show it like
>>below:
>>>>>> Type N (%) Record size (%) FPI size (%) Combined size (%)
>>>>>> ---- - --- ----------- --- -------- --- ------------- --- ...
>>>>>> XLOG/SWITCH_JUNK - ( -) 11006248 ( 72.26) - ( -) 11006248 ( 65.78)
>>>>>> Transaction/COMMIT 10 ( 0.03) 340 ( 0.00) 0 ( 0.00) 340 ( 0.00)
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wanted to know why the "count" and "fpi_len" fields 0 are.
>>>>> So, it would be nice to have 0 values. Sorry for confusing you.
>>>>
>>>> Kato, it's not clear to me if you were asking for - to be changed back to 0?
>>>>
>>>> You marked the patch as Ready for Committer so I assume not, but it
>>>> would be better to say clearly that you think this patch is ready for a
>committer to look at.
>>>
>>> Yes, I don't think it needs to be changed back to 0.
>>> I think this patch is ready for a committer to look at.
>>
>> What's the use case of this feature? I read through this thread
>> briefly, but I'm still not sure how useful this feature is.
>>
>> Horiguchi-san reported one issue upthread; --stats=record shows two
>> lines for Transaction/COMMIT record. Probably this should be fixed
>> separately.
>>
>> Horiguchi-san,
>> Do you have updated version of that bug-fix patch?
>> Or you started another thread for that issue?
>
>I confirmed that only XACT records need to be processed differently.
>So the patch that Horiguchi-san posted upthread looks good and enough to me.
>I added a bit more detail information into the comment in the patch.
>Attached is the updated version of the patch. Since this issue looks like a bug,
>I'm thinking to back-patch that. Thought?
>
>Barring any objection, I will commit this.

I think it's good except for a typo "thoes four bits"

Regards,
Shinya Kato