> > There is a higher-level Instrumentation API that can be used with > > INSTRUMENT_WAL flag to collect the wal usage information. I believe > > the instrumentation is widely used in the executor code, so it should > > not be a problem to colelct instrumentation information on autovacuum > > worker level. > > > > Just a recommendation/chat, though. I am happy with the way the data > > is collected now. If you commit this variant, please add a TODO to > > rework wal usage to common instr API. > > > The instrumentation is somewhat intended to be used with executor nodes, not > backend commands. I don't see real technical reason that would prevent that, > but I prefer to keep things as-is for now, as it sound less controversial. > This is for the 3rd patch, which may not even be considered for this CF > anyway. > > > > > > As for the tests, please get somebody else to review this. I strongly > > > > believe checking full page writes here could be a source of > > > > instability. > > > > > > > > > I'm also a little bit dubious about it. The initial checkpoint should > > > make > > > things stable (of course unless full_page_writes is disabled), and Cfbot > > > also > > > seems happy about it. At least keeping it for the temporary tables test > > > shouldn't be a problem. > > > > Temp tables should show zero FPI WAL records, true :) > > > > I have no objections to the patch. > > > I'm attaching a v5 with fp records only for temp tables, so there's no risk of > instability. As I previously said I'm fine with your two patches, so unless > you have objections on the fpi test for temp tables or the documentation > changes, I believe those should be ready for committer.
No objections on my side either. Thank you for your review, time and efforts!
