RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
Date
Msg-id TYAPR01MB2990C2089BB297AF0ADB0E7DFE2D0@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Responses Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size
List pgsql-hackers
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
> > I changed the view name from pg_stat_walwrites to pg_stat_walwriter.
> > I think it is better to match naming scheme with other views like
> pg_stat_bgwriter,
> > which is for bgwriter statistics but it has the statistics related to backend.
>
> I prefer the view name pg_stat_walwriter for the consistency with
> other view names. But we also have pg_stat_wal_receiver. Which
> makes me think that maybe pg_stat_wal_writer is better for
> the consistency. Thought? IMO either of them works for me.
> I'd like to hear more opinons about this.

I think pg_stat_bgwriter is now a misnomer, because it contains the backends' activity.  Likewise, pg_stat_walwriter
leadsto misunderstanding because its information is not limited to WAL writer. 

How about simply pg_stat_wal?  In the future, we may want to include WAL reads in this view, e.g. reading undo logs in
zheap.


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kasahara Tatsuhito
Date:
Subject: Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Clang UndefinedBehaviorSanitize (Postgres14) Detected undefined-behavior