Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZXk7=CrAzszvL7K9g4xWjSBbA0Gn2A5XbiJx74zXzA6Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer ("Dickson S. Guedes" <listas@guedesoft.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Dickson S. Guedes <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote: > 2011/10/19 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Any reason or objection to committing this patch? >> >> The checkpointer doesn't call pgstat_send_bgwriter(), but it should. >> Otherwise, some entries in pg_stat_bgwriter will never be updated. > > Yes, checkpoints_req, checkpoints_timed and buffer_checkpoint are not > being updated with this patch. > >> If we adopt the patch, checkpoint is performed by checkpointer. So >> it looks odd that information related to checkpoint exist in >> pg_stat_bgwriter. We should move them to new catalog even if >> it breaks the compatibility? > > Splitting pg_stat_bgwriter into pg_stat_bgwriter and > pg_stat_checkpointer will break something internal? > > With this modification we'll see applications like monitoring tools > breaking, but they could use a view to put data back together in a > compatible way, IMHO. I don't really see any reason to break the monitoring view just because we did some internal refactoring. I'd rather have backward compatibility. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: