Re: WAL usage calculation patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kuntal Ghosh
Subject Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date
Msg-id CAGz5QCL1J=Srp38_X-Ho9rdKJYpU6ahbphcWvHAgnpfbGN0nVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL usage calculation patch  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WAL usage calculation patch  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:14 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
@@ -448,6 +449,7 @@ XLogInsert(RmgrId rmid, uint8 info)
  bool doPageWrites;
  XLogRecPtr fpw_lsn;
  XLogRecData *rdt;
+ int num_fpw = 0;

  /*
  * Get values needed to decide whether to do full-page writes. Since
@@ -457,9 +459,9 @@ XLogInsert(RmgrId rmid, uint8 info)
  GetFullPageWriteInfo(&RedoRecPtr, &doPageWrites);

  rdt = XLogRecordAssemble(rmid, info, RedoRecPtr, doPageWrites,
- &fpw_lsn);
+ &fpw_lsn, &num_fpw);

- EndPos = XLogInsertRecord(rdt, fpw_lsn, curinsert_flags);
+ EndPos = XLogInsertRecord(rdt, fpw_lsn, curinsert_flags, num_fpw);
  } while (EndPos == InvalidXLogRecPtr);

I think there are some issues in the num_fpw calculation. For some
cases, we have to return from XLogInsert without inserting a record.
Basically, we've to recompute/reassemble the same record. In those
cases, num_fpw should be reset. Thoughts?

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: recovery_target_action=pause with confusing hint
Next
From: Sergei Kornilov
Date:
Subject: Re: recovery_target_action=pause with confusing hint