Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
От | Masahiro Ikeda |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 773b9bdcda306e4c3da3f7f491779878@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-29 11:43, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:39 AM Masahiro Ikeda > <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >> >> On 2020-09-28 12:43, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi >> > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> At Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:11:23 +0530, Amit Kapila >> >> <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in >> >> > One other thing that occurred to me today is can't we keep this as >> >> > part of PgStat_GlobalStats? We can use pg_stat_reset_shared('wal'); to >> >> > reset it. It seems to me this is a cluster-wide stats and somewhat >> >> > similar to some of the other stats we maintain there. >> >> >> >> I like that direction, but PgStat_GlobalStats is actually >> >> PgStat_BgWriterStats and cleard by a RESET_BGWRITER message. >> >> >> > >> > Yeah, I think if we want to pursue this direction then we probably >> > need to have a separate message to set/reset WAL-related stuff. I >> > guess we probably need to have a separate reset timestamp for WAL. I >> > think the difference would be that we can have one structure to refer >> > to global_stats instead of referring to multiple structures and we >> > don't need to issue separate read/write calls but OTOH I don't see >> > many disadvantages of the current approach as well. >> >> IIUC, if we keep wal stats as part of PgStat_GlobalStats, >> don't we need to add PgStat_ArchiverStats and PgStat_SLRUStats >> to PgStat_GlobalStats too? >> > > I have given the idea for wal_stats because there is just one counter > in that. I think you can just try to evaluate the merits of each > approach and choose whichever you feel is good. This is just a > suggestion, if you don't like it feel free to proceed with the current > approach. Thanks for your suggestion. I understood that the point is that WAL-related stats have just one counter now. Since we may add some WAL-related stats like pgWalUsage.(bytes, records, fpi), I think that the current approach is good. -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: