Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process
| От | Anthonin Bonnefoy |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAO6_XqrK3CZXKD4mMbmB=pYzXcyZxdWqpT45__fyTzLnriyrMg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Flush SLRU counters in checkpointer process
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:33 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-01-11 10:29:06 +0100, Anthonin Bonnefoy wrote:
> Currently, the Checkpointer process only reports SLRU statistics at server
> shutdown, leading to delayed statistics for SLRU flushes. This patch adds a
> flush of SLRU stats to the end of checkpoints.
Hm. I wonder if we should do this even earlier, by the
pgstat_report_checkpointer() calls in CheckpointWriteDelay().
I'm inclined to move the pgstat_report_wal() and pgstat_report_slru() calls
into pgstat_report_checkpointer() to avoid needing to care about all the
individual places.
That would make sense. I've created a new patch with everything moved in pgstat_report_checkpointer().
I did split the checkpointer flush in a pgstat_flush_checkpointer() function as it seemed more readable. Thought?
> @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ CheckpointerMain(void)
> /* Report pending statistics to the cumulative stats system */
> pgstat_report_checkpointer();
> pgstat_report_wal(true);
> + pgstat_report_slru(true);
Why do we need a force parameter if all callers use it?
Good point. I've written the same signature as pgstat_report_wal but there's no need for the nowait parameter.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: