Hi,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 11:16:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 08:49:41AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > can be extracted from pg_stat_get_backend_io(), so there is no need to duplicate
> > this information. The same comment could be done for pg_stat_wal and pg_stat_io
> > though, but pg_stat_wal already exists so removing fields has not the same
> > effect.
> >
> > What are you thoughts about keeping in pg_stat_get_backend_wal() only the
> > 4 stats mentioned above?
>
> wal_buffers_full is incremented in AdvanceXLInsertBuffer(), part of
> PendingWalStats. wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes are part of the
> instrumentation field. It looks to me that if you discard the
> wal_buffers_full part, the implementation of the data in the backend
> could just be tied to the fields coming from WalUsage.
Yup.
> Actually, could it actually be useful to have wal_buffers_full be
> available in WalUsage, so as it would show up in EXPLAIN in a
> per-query basis with show_wal_usage()?
Yeah, that might help. One could not be 100% sure that the statement being
explained is fully responsible of the wal buffer being full (as it could just be
a "victim" of an already almost full wal buffer). But OTOH that might help to
understand why an EXPLAIN analyze is slower than another one (i.e one generating
wal buffer full and the other not). Also I think it could be added to
pg_stat_statements and could also provide valuable information.
> Consolidating that would make
> what you are trying it a bit easier, because we would have the
> WalUsage and the pg_stat_io parts without any of the PendingWalStats
> part. And it is just a counter not that expensive to handle, like the
> data for records, fpis and bytes. This extra information could be
> useful to have in the context of an EXPLAIN.
Yeah, I did a bit of archeology to try to understand why it's not already the
case. From what I can see, in commit time order:
1. df3b181499 introduced the WalUsage structure
2. 6b466bf5f2 added the wal usage in pg_stat_statements
3. 33e05f89c5 added the wal usage in EXPLAIN
4. 8d9a935965f added pg_stat_wal (and wal_buffers_full)
5. 01469241b2f added the wal usage in pg_stat_wal
So, wal_buffers_full has been introduced after the WalUsage structure was
there but I don't see any reason in the emails as to why it's not in the WalUsage
structure (I might have missed it though).
I think that this proposal makes sense but would need a dedicated thread,
thoughts?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
