Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal
Date
Msg-id aQBxhJ-XDDcku9V8@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal  (Shinya Kato <shinya11.kato@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 06:36:01PM +0900, Shinya Kato wrote:
> Okay, since I'm not strongly attached to this idea,  I've removed the
> 0003 patch for now.

The fact that we cannot access this information without a pg_waldump
or a pg_walinspect, which may not be available, and can be expensive,
is a deal-breaker for me..  Or we may not have a direct access to the
WAL segments.

Without the changes in instrument.c from patch 0002, patch 0001 that
implements the basics would not work.  So..  I have moved the changes
of instrument.c to 0001, reordered the fields to be more consistent,
did two bumps (catalog, stats file), simplified the docs, then applied
the result.

By the way, Kato-san, what do you think about the attached extra
simplification?  With the FPIs counted in bytes, I don't see much a
point in passing around the number of FPIs generated from
XLogRecordAssemble() to XLogInsertRecord() .
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: make -C src/test/isolation failure in index-killtuples due to btree_gist