Hi, On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 07:31:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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.
Agree, I'll start a dedicated thread for that. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
