Re: wal stats questions
От
Fujii Masao
Тема
Re: wal stats questions
Дата
Msg-id
a5ef62ab-e9d8-a6c5-2fed-03aa5dd7fa1a@oss.nttdata.com
Ответ на
Re: wal stats questions (Kyotaro Horiguchi)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions torikoshia <torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
Re: wal stats questions Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
On 2021/03/26 10:08, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Thu, 25 Mar 2021 19:01:23 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in >> On 2021/03/25 16:37, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>> pgWalUsage was used without resetting and we (I) thought that that >>> behavior should be preserved. On second thought, as Andres suggested, >>> we can just reset pgWalUsage at sending since AFAICS no one takes >>> difference crossing pgstat_report_stat() calls. >> >> Yes, I agree that we can do that since there seems no such code for >> now. >> Also if we do that, we can check, for example "pgWalUsage.wal_records >>> 0" >> as you suggested, to easily determine whether there is pending WAL >> stats or not. >> Anyway I agree it's better to add comments about the design more. > ... >>> If any wal activity has been recorded, wal_records is always positive >>> thus we can check for wal activity just by "pgWalUsage.wal_records > >>> 0, which should be fast enough. >> >> Maybe there is the case where a backend generates no WAL records, >> but just writes them because it needs to do write-ahead-logging >> when flush the table data? If yes, "pgWalUsage.wal_records > 0" is not >> enough. >> Probably other fields also need to be checked. > > (I noticed I made the discussion above unconsciously premising > pgWalUsage reset.) > > I may be misunderstanding or missing something, but the only place > where pgWalUsage counters are increased is XLogInsertRecrod. That is, > pgWalUsage counts wal insertions, not writes nor flushes. AFAICS Yes. And WalStats instead of pgWalUsage includes the stats about not only WAL insertions, but also writes and flushes. pgstat_send_wal() checks WalStats to determine whether there are pending WAL stats to send to the stats collector or not. That is, the counters of not only WAL insertions but also writes and flushes should be checked to determine whether there are pending stats or not, I think.. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Fujii Masao
Дата: