Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 11:16:15 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: per backend WAL statistics
Message-ID: <Z6LJ7xcXmFs_LKmV@paquier.xyz>
References: <Z4dRlNuhSQ3hPPv2@paquier.xyz>
 <Z4ks4+wnAz8eEyX9@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <xibh465r3x7xvpzaozu47fxule3dktvwz4yacce4pjlw76lkjd@fjvm56zbev37>
 <Z4k9rb3aTNVSmyq/@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <aj5vdgpbux5e2dbr6gcgd4eu3krjrflljt2neivh2vbkfrlant@2qedfymz7lmh>
 <Z4mZvW9ugvCOd_QH@paquier.xyz>
 <Z49KmyAIFQtDp0bV@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <Z5H4Su2fvuRD82dl@paquier.xyz>
 <Z5ISnjxjrxFWLISw@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <Z6HUpWt11kZNHey0@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tTospGvxelLmqAOe"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Z6HUpWt11kZNHey0@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z6LJ7xcXmFs_LKmV%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--tTospGvxelLmqAOe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 08:49:41AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> I think that:=20
>=20
> wal_write (and wal_write_time)
> wal_sync (and wal_sync_time)

Right.  We are not able to get this data from XLogWrite() and
issue_xlog_fsync(), so there is no need to duplicate that anymore in
your patch.

> can be extracted from pg_stat_get_backend_io(), so there is no need to du=
plicate
> this information. The same comment could be done for pg_stat_wal and pg_s=
tat_io
> though, but pg_stat_wal already exists so removing fields has not the same
> effect.
>=20
> 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.

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()?  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.
--
Michael

--tTospGvxelLmqAOe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=tek6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tTospGvxelLmqAOe--