Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aNOSvFWplHTeHGd2@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:38:30AM +0530, shveta malik wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:08 AM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In WalSndWriteData() we can't rely on what happens in a low level API > > like socket_putmessage(). And we are counting the number of bytes in > > the logically decoded message. So, I actually wonder whether we should > > count 1 byte of 'd' in sentBytes. Shveta, Bertand, what do you think? > > > > If we are not counting all such metadata bytes ((or can't reliably do > so), then IMO, we shall skip counting msgtype as well. Agree. Maybe mention in the doc that metadata (including msgtype) bytes are not taken into account? Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: