Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3419998a-0e47-9445-9a71-1cf7bca300d4@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/07/25 7:50, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I've been repeatedly confused by the the number of WAL files supposedly > added. Even when 100s of new WAL files are created the relevant portion > of log_checkpoints will only ever list zero or one added WAL file. > > The reason for that is that CheckpointStats.ckpt_segs_added is only > incremented in PreallocXlogFiles(). Which has the following comment: > * XXX this is currently extremely conservative, since it forces only one > * future log segment to exist, and even that only if we are 75% done with > * the current one. This is only appropriate for very low-WAL-volume systems. > > Whereas in real workloads WAL files are almost exclusively created via > XLogWrite()->XLogFileInit(). > > I think we should consider just removing that field. Or, even better, show > something accurate instead. +1 to show something accurate instead. It's also worth showing them in monitoring stats view like pg_stat_wal? Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: