Re: Should pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend_fsync be removed? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Should pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend_fsync be removed?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobJmHCSMO7ue-O58b25OPHxSv3nCKhYV52Fg8f5ATw=DQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend_fsync be removed?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Should pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend_fsync be removed?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:
>>> I suggest removing it for 9.5, and instead logging individual
>>> occurrences of backend fsync requests within ForwardFsyncRequest(). It
>>> seems fair to treat that as an anomaly to draw particular attention
>>> to.
>>
>> But wouldn't that make it more complicated/unlikely to discover cases, where
>> it still doesn't work?
>
> I don't think so, no.

I think it just depends.  For people who are running a log scraper
anyway, a message would be better than a statistics counter, because
it's one less thing to check.  For people who are running something
that monitors the stats views anyway, but perhaps not a log scraper,
the counter is better.

Overall, I don't see much reason to tinker with this.  If we had no
reporting at all of this condition now, I'd probably be mildly more
supportive of adding a log message than a counter.  But since we've
already got something and there's no real problem with it, I'm
disinclined to make a change.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend_fsync be removed?