On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:53 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:55:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Here, we are not displaying Buffers related data, so why do we think > > it is important to display WAL data? I see some point in displaying > > Buffers and WAL data in a vacuum (verbose), but I feel it is better to > > make a case for both the statistics together rather than just > > displaying one and leaving other. I think the other change related to > > autovacuum stats seems okay to me. > > One thing is that the amount of WAL, and more precisely FPW, is quite > unpredictable wrt. vacuum and even more anti-wraparound vacuum, so this is > IMHO > a very useful metric. >
I agree but we already have a way via pg_stat_statements to find it if the metric is so useful. > That being said I totally agree with you that both > should be displayed. Should I send a patch to also expose it? > I think this should be a separate proposal. Let's not add things unless they are really essential. We can separately discuss of enhancing vacuum verbose for Buffer and WAL usage stats and see if others also find that information useful. I think you can send a patch by removing the code I mentioned above if you agree. Thanks for working on this. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
