On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:22:55AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > 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?
Using a separate thread for a change like that makes sense to me. I have to admit that the simplifications in terms of designs for what we're discussing here makes such a change more valuable. Adding this information to WalUsage is one thing. Showing it in EXPLAIN is a second thing. Doing the former simplifies the patch you are proposing here. We don't necessarily have to do the latter, but I don't see a reason to not do it, either. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
