On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:04:44AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:35:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Perhaps there's a point in backpatching a portion of what's in the >> attached patch (the wait event?), but I am not planning to bother much >> with the stable branches based on the lack of complaints. > > We're not emitting some statistics, so I think that it's hard for users to > complain about something they don't/can't see.
Hmm, not exactly actually. I've missed that ff99918c625a mentions that WAL receiver was discarded on purpose, but this was still when pgstats was not in shared memory and still file-based. We scale much better now. It is not that difficult to make XLogWrite() hot enough that it would trigger a lot of calls of pgstat_count_io_op_time() per ms, either, like the WAL receiver, so as long as the timings are behind track_wal_io_timing we're fine. Let's do this at the end, without a backpatch. At least we'll be anle to get better IO metrics for replication setups. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
