MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHGQGwHJHJYAkYZBi3_O13np-Rou9UL637=hB3Y_-qdCgcZn-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <E5A7D80B-A691-4DDE-9E90-19CC0ED0BFF5@yesql.se>
 <CAHGQGwEv-C9ia+rBYyePzO8F=5FVvS412ZqcOupazuOb5RafNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8D4EF043-0DA9-4DF1-A28C-E3598167D1D2@yesql.se>
 <CAHGQGwFsBjQs2fv7b72hxzGV_fJMh6LAg4E83pNfDOu1jVgWCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2DA6464-F27E-4545-9DE7-B61A6172DD18@yesql.se>
In-Reply-To: <A2DA6464-F27E-4545-9DE7-B61A6172DD18@yesql.se>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 22:29:47 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwGQsMnUBSSTawOtri9qr3wi5fE8V2+GcZw-rT=Vg33wQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fix data checksum progress reporting docs
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: "pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwGQsMnUBSSTawOtri9qr3wi5fE8V2%2BGcZw-rT%3DVg33wQA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for updating the patch!

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 7:00=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>=
 wrote:
> > Shouldn't "the process which operate" be either "the process which oper=
ates"
> > or "the processes which operate"? Since multiple data checksums workers
> > can run, the latter seems more appropriate.
>
> Currently the processing is limited to a single worker, so I think the pr=
oposed
> wording is more appropriate.

So "operate" of "the process which operate" should be "operates"
(i.e., "s" is necessary for "operate")?


> > While looking at the related code, I also found that
> > B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_LAUNCHER and B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_WORKER
> > were added as BackendType entries in miscadmin.h. Since those entries a=
ppear
> > under the comment for auxiliary processes, it could give the impression=
 that
> > the data checksums launcher and workers are auxiliary processes. To avo=
id
> > that confusion, would it make sense to add a comment such as:
> >
> >    -------------------------
> >            B_WAL_WRITER,
> >
> >    +       /*
> >    +        * XXXXXXXXXX
> >    +        */
> >            B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_LAUNCHER,
> >            B_DATACHECKSUMSWORKER_WORKER,
> >    -------------------------
>
> Fair point, see attached.

+ /* Background worker processes */

Thanks for adding the comment! I'm a bit concerned that it's misleading,
since enum BackendType already contains background worker entries
such as B_BG_WORKER and B_SLOTSYNC_WORKER. So, how about making it
more specific? For example:

    ------------
    Data checksums processes are dynamic background workers, but they
    use dedicated backend types for pgstat I/O accounting.
    ------------


> > BTW, I'm also wondering why dedicated BackendType entries were added fo=
r
> > the data checksums processes, while other background workers don't have
> > their own BackendType values.
>
> They are need for the pgstat system though aren't they, or am I missing
> something?

As I understand it, dedicated backend types are not inherently required
by the pgstat infrastructure. They are needed here so that pg_stat_io
can account for I/O performed by the data checksums launcher and
workers separately from generic background workers. Otherwise,
their I/O would simply be counted under the background worker backend
type, making it impossible to distinguish their I/O statistics.
Is this my understanding right??

Regards,

--=20
Fujii Masao