On 2021/05/19 11:40, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for updating the patch! I modified some comments slightly and
> pushed that version of the patch.
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION
On 2021/05/18 9:57, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/05/17 22:34, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/05/17 16:39, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
Thanks for your comments!
+ * is executed, wal records aren't nomally generated (although HOT makes
nomally -> normally?
Yes, fixed.
+ * It's not
On 2021/05/17 22:34, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/05/17 16:39, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your comments!
>>
+ * is executed, wal records aren't nomally generated (although HOT
makes
>>>
>>> nomally -> normally?
>>
>> Yes, fixed.
>>
+ * It's not enough to
On 2021/05/17 16:39, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
Thanks for your comments!
+ * is executed, wal records aren't nomally generated (although HOT makes
nomally -> normally?
Yes, fixed.
+ * It's not enough to check the number of generated wal records, for
+ * example the walwriter
Thanks for your comments!
>> + * is executed, wal records aren't nomally generated (although HOT makes
>
> nomally -> normally?
Yes, fixed.
>> + * It's not enough to check the number of generated wal records, for
>> + * example the walwriter may write/sync the WAL although it
On 2021-05-13 09:05, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/05/12 19:19, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/05/11 18:46, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/05/11 16:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/28 9:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/27 21:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro
On 2021/05/12 19:19, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/05/11 18:46, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/05/11 16:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/04/28 9:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/27 21:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro
On 2021/05/11 18:46, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/05/11 16:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/28 9:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/27 21:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
First patch has only the changes for pg_stat_wal view.
On 2021/05/11 16:44, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/04/28 9:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/04/27 21:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
First patch has only the changes for pg_stat_wal view.
On 2021/04/28 9:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
Second one has the changes for the type of the BufferUsage's and WalUsage's
members. I change the type from long to int64. Is it better to make new thread?
("v6-0002-change-the-data-type-of-XXXUsage-from-long-to-int64.patch")
Will review the patch
On 2021/04/28 9:10, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/27 21:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
First patch has only the changes for pg_stat_wal view.
("v6-0001-performance-improvements-of-reporting-wal-stats-without-introducing-a-new-variable.patch")
+
On 2021/04/27 21:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>
>> First patch has only the changes for pg_stat_wal view.
>> ("v6-0001-performance-improvements-of-reporting-wal-stats-without-introducing-a-new-variable.patch")
>>
>
> + pgWalUsage.wal_records
On 2021/04/26 10:11, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/23 16:30, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/23 10:25, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2021-04-23 09:26:17 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/23 0:36, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
On
On 2021/04/23 16:30, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/04/23 10:25, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021-04-23 09:26:17 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>> On 2021/04/23 0:36, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro
On 2021/04/23 10:25, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2021-04-23 09:26:17 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/23 0:36, Andres Freund wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
BTW, is it better to change PgStat_Counter from int64
Hi,
On 2021-04-23 09:26:17 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> On 2021/04/23 0:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> BTW, is it better to change PgStat_Counter from int64 to uint64 because>
> there
On 2021/04/23 9:26, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/23 0:36, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
BTW, is it better to change PgStat_Counter from int64 to uint64 because> there
aren't any counters with
On 2021/04/23 0:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
BTW, is it better to change PgStat_Counter from int64 to uint64 because>
there aren't any counters with negative number?
>> On second
Hi
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, at 06:42, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> >> BTW, is it better to change PgStat_Counter from int64 to uint64 because>
> >> there aren't any counters with negative number?
>
> On second thought, it's ok even if the counters like
On 2021/04/21 18:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
BTW, is it better to change PgStat_Counter from int64 to uint64 because> there
aren't any counters with negative number?
On second thought, it's ok even if the counters like wal_records get overflowed.
Because they are always used to calculate the
On 2021/04/21 15:08, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2021-04-16 10:27, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>> On 2021/04/13 9:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/03/30 20:37, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
OK, I added the condition to the fast-return check. I noticed that I
misunderstood that the purpose is
On 2021-04-16 10:27, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/04/13 9:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2021/03/30 20:37, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
OK, I added the condition to the fast-return check. I noticed that I
misunderstood that the purpose is to avoid expanding a clock check
using WAL
stats counters. But,
On 2021/04/13 9:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/03/30 20:37, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>> OK, I added the condition to the fast-return check. I noticed that I
>> misunderstood that the purpose is to avoid expanding a clock check using WAL
>> stats counters. But, the purpose is to make the
On 2021/03/30 20:37, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
OK, I added the condition to the fast-return check. I noticed that I
misunderstood that the purpose is to avoid expanding a clock check using WAL
stats counters. But, the purpose is to make the conditions stricter, right?
Yes. Currently if the
On 2021/03/30 17:28, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 30 Mar 2021 09:41:24 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda
> wrote in
>> I update the patch since there were my misunderstanding points.
>>
>> On 2021/03/26 16:20, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>> Thanks for many your suggestions!
>>> I made the patch to handle
At Tue, 30 Mar 2021 09:41:24 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda
wrote in
> I update the patch since there were my misunderstanding points.
>
> On 2021/03/26 16:20, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> > Thanks for many your suggestions!
> > I made the patch to handle the issues.
> >
> >> 1) What is the motivation to
I update the patch since there were my misunderstanding points.
On 2021/03/26 16:20, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> Thanks for many your suggestions!
> I made the patch to handle the issues.
>
>> 1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
>>instead of just accumulating the
At Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:09:00 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:07:45 -0700, Andres Freund wrote
> in
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-03-25 16:37:10 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > On the other hand, the counters are incremented in XLogInsertRecord()
> > > and I
At Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:07:45 -0700, Andres Freund wrote in
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-25 16:37:10 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > On the other hand, the counters are incremented in XLogInsertRecord()
> > and I think we don't want add instructions there.
>
> I don't really buy this. Setting a
Hi,
On 2021-03-25 16:37:10 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> On the other hand, the counters are incremented in XLogInsertRecord()
> and I think we don't want add instructions there.
I don't really buy this. Setting a boolean to true, in a cacheline
you're already touching, isn't that much
Thanks for many your suggestions!
I made the patch to handle the issues.
> 1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
>instead of just accumulating the stats since the last submission?
>There doesn't seem to be any comment explaining it? Computing
>differences
At Fri, 26 Mar 2021 10:32:23 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> > I may be misunderstanding or missing something, but the only place
> > where pgWalUsage counters are increased is XLogInsertRecrod. That is,
> > pgWalUsage counts wal insertions, not writes nor flushes. AFAICS
>
> Yes. And WalStats
On 2021/03/26 10:08, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Thu, 25 Mar 2021 19:01:23 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
On 2021/03/25 16:37, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
pgWalUsage was used without resetting and we (I) thought that that
behavior should be preserved. On second thought, as Andres suggested,
we
At Thu, 25 Mar 2021 19:01:23 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> On 2021/03/25 16:37, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > pgWalUsage was used without resetting and we (I) thought that that
> > behavior should be preserved. On second thought, as Andres suggested,
> > we can just reset pgWalUsage at sending
On 2021/03/25 16:37, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:07:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote in
Hi,
On 2021-03-25 10:51:56 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
On 2021/03/25 8:22, Andres Freund wrote:
1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
instead of
At Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:07:26 -0700, Andres Freund wrote in
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-25 10:51:56 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> > On 2021/03/25 8:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
> > >instead of just accumulating the stats since
Hi,
On 2021-03-25 10:51:56 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> On 2021/03/25 8:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
> >instead of just accumulating the stats since the last submission?
> >There doesn't seem to be any comment
On 2021/03/25 8:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a few questions about the wal stats while working on the shmem
> stats patch:
Thanks for your reviews.
> 1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
>instead of just accumulating the stats since the last
Hi,
I got a few questions about the wal stats while working on the shmem
stats patch:
1) What is the motivation to have both prevWalUsage and pgWalUsage,
instead of just accumulating the stats since the last submission?
There doesn't seem to be any comment explaining it? Computing
39 matches
Mail list logo
