On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is possible that both of us are having different meanings for below
> two variables:
> +typedef struct WalUsage
> +{
> + long wal_records; /* # of WAL records produced */
> + long wal_fpw_records; /* # of full page write WAL records
> + * produced */
>
>
> Let me clarify my understanding. Say if the record is just an FPI
> (ex. XLOG_FPI) and doesn't contain any data then do we want to add one
> to each of wal_fpw_records and wal_records? My understanding was in
> such a case we will just increment wal_fpw_records.
Yes, as Dilip just pointed out the misunderstanding is due to this
poor name. Indeed, in such case what I want is both counters to be
incremented. What I want is wal_records to reflect the total number
of records generated regardless of any content, and wal_num_fpw the
number of full page images, as it seems to make the most sense, and
the easiest way to estimate the ratio of data due to FPW.
> > > 3. We need to enhance the patch to cover WAL usage for parallel
> > > vacuum and parallel create index based on Sawada-San's latest patch[1]
> > > which fixed the case for buffer usage.
> >
> > I'm sorry but I'm not following. Do you mean adding regression tests
> > for that case?
> >
>
> No. I mean to say we should implement WAL usage calculation for those
> two parallel commands. AFAICS, your patch doesn't cover those two
> commands.
Oh I see. I just assumed that Sawada-san's patch would be committed
first and I'd then rebase the patchset on top of the newly added
infrastructure to also handle WAL counters, to avoid any conflict on
that bugfix while this new feature is being discussed. I'll rebase
the patchset against those patches then.
