Re: Replication slot stats misgivings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1Jesa_G-NOHmV3cCO7Eg=GJt4AWVeFAVyDHoTaq3H-R7Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication slot stats misgivings  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:04 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 7:52 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've not looked at the patches yet but as Amit mentioned before[1],
> > it's better to move 0002 patch to after 0004. That is, 0001 patch
> > changes data type to NameData, 0002 patch adds total_txn and
> > total_bytes, and 0003 patch adds regression tests. 0004 patch will be
> > the patch using HTAB (was 0002 patch) and get reviewed after pushing
> > 0001, 0002, and 0003 patches. 0005 patch adds more regression tests
> > for the problem 0004 patch addresses.
>
> I will make the change for this and post a patch for this.
> Currently we have kept total_txns and total_bytes at the beginning of
> pg_stat_replication_slots, I did not see any conclusion on this. I
> preferred it to be at the beginning.
> Thoughts?
>

I prefer those two fields after spill and stream fields. I have
mentioned the same in one of the emails above.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans