Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness
От | Bossart, Nathan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BC5A4B01-537B-4FE5-A0B7-40D8DC9E0AA4@amazon.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/26/21, 5:23 PM, "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > 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. I agree with you about adding a new field to pg_stat_wal. The parameter would just be a convenient way of logging this information for future reference. I don't feel strongly about the parameter if you think the pg_stat_wal addition is enough. Nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: