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 | 4822e6b7-834d-ff99-a2ae-f0ff7434a8c4@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/07/27 5:27, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation > patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new > field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal_init_interval, > where the value is the minimum amount of time between reporting the > number of WAL segments created since the last report? You mean to introduce new GUC like log_wal_init_interval and that the number of WAL files created since the last report will be logged every that interval? But isn't it better and simpler to just expose the accumulated number of WAL files created, in pg_stat_wal view or elsewhere? If so, we can easily get to know the number of WAL files created in every interval by checking the view and calculating the diff. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: