On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:27:27AM +0900, Ryoga Yoshida wrote: > Thank you for the review. Certainly, adding a comments is a good idea. I > added a comment.
Hmm. How about the attached version with some tweaks? -- Michael
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/activity/pgstat_wal.c b/src/backend/utils/activity/pgstat_wal.c
index bcaed14d02..82feb792cf 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/activity/pgstat_wal.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/activity/pgstat_wal.c
@@ -38,13 +38,18 @@ static WalUsage prevWalUsage;
*
* Must be called by processes that generate WAL, that do not call
* pgstat_report_stat(), like walwriter.
+ *
+ * force set to true ensures that the statistics are flushed; note that
+ * this needs to acquire the pgstat shmem LWLock, waiting on it. When
+ * set to false, the statistics may not be flushed if the lock could not
+ * be acquired.
*/
void
pgstat_report_wal(bool force)
{
- pgstat_flush_wal(force);
-
- pgstat_flush_io(force);
+ /* like in pgstat.c, don't wait for lock acquisition when !force */
+ pgstat_flush_wal(!force);
+ pgstat_flush_io(!force);
}
/*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
