Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written} - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob5rveOZ608eYNQgja8J=aJvYQC4KH85fFJJOBmr6kn+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}  (Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pgBufferUsage.blk_{read|write}_time are zero although there are pgBufferUsage.local_blks_{read|written}
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 6:25 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think about the second patch, counting extend calls'
> timings in blk_write_time? In my opinion if something increments
> {shared|local}_blks_written, then it needs to be counted in
> blk_write_time too. I am not sure why it is decided like that.

I agree that an extend should be counted the same way as a write. But
I'm suspicious that here too we have confusion about whether
blk_write_time is supposed to be covering shared buffers and local
buffers or just shared buffers.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: Change of behaviour for creating same type name in multiple schemas
Next
From: Isaac Morland
Date:
Subject: Re: Pre-proposal: unicode normalized text