2011/10/19 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Any reason or objection to committing this patch? > > The checkpointer doesn't call pgstat_send_bgwriter(), but it should. > Otherwise, some entries in pg_stat_bgwriter will never be updated.
Yes, checkpoints_req, checkpoints_timed and buffer_checkpoint are not being updated with this patch. > If we adopt the patch, checkpoint is performed by checkpointer. So > it looks odd that information related to checkpoint exist in > pg_stat_bgwriter. We should move them to new catalog even if > it breaks the compatibility? Splitting pg_stat_bgwriter into pg_stat_bgwriter and pg_stat_checkpointer will break something internal? With this modification we'll see applications like monitoring tools breaking, but they could use a view to put data back together in a compatible way, IMHO. -- Dickson S. Guedes mail/xmpp: gue...@guedesoft.net - skype: guediz http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
