Hi, Xuneng
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 19:17, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Zsolt,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 1:55 PM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> This is a simple patch, but shouldn't it include at least some basic
> tests verifying the new behavior?
>
> Thanks for looking into this. I've added a test for it. Please take a look.
Thanks for updating the patch. A few comments on v2:
1.
+ (The probes listed next fire in sequence during checkpoint processing.)
+ arg0 is the number of buffers written. arg1 is the total number of
These changes seem unnecessary. Additionally, there appears to be an
indentation issue.
2.
+ current = pg_atomic_read_u64(&XLogCtl->walSegmentsCreated);
+ CheckpointStats.ckpt_segs_added = (int)
+ (current - XLogCtl->walSegsCreatedLastCheckpoint);
+ XLogCtl->walSegsCreatedLastCheckpoint = current;
Is integer overflow a concern here? It seems unlikely in practice.
>
> --
> Best,
> Xuneng
>
> [4. text/x-diff; v2-0001-Count-WAL-segment-creations-by-all-processes-in-l.patch]...
--
Regards,
Japin Li
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., Ltd.