Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-26 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 7/26/21, 5:48 PM, "Andres Freund" wrote: > On 2021-07-26 20:27:21 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation >> patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new >> field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-26 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2021-07-25 12:10:07 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > It's also worth showing them in monitoring stats view like pg_stat_wal? I'm not convinced that's all that meaningful. It makes sense to include it as part of the checkpoint output, because checkpoints determine when WAL can be recycled etc. I

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-26 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2021-07-26 20:27:21 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation > patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new > field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal_init_interval, > where the value is the mini

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-26 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 7/26/21, 5:23 PM, "Fujii Masao" wrote: > On 2021/07/27 5:27, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation >> patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new >> field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal_init_interv

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-26 Thread Fujii Masao
On 2021/07/27 5:27, Bossart, Nathan wrote: +1. I was confused by this when working on a WAL pre-allocation patch [0]. Perhaps it could be replaced by a new parameter and a new field in pg_stat_wal. How about something like log_wal_init_interval, where the value is the minimum amount of time

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-26 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 7/24/21, 8:10 PM, "Fujii Masao" wrote: > On 2021/07/25 7:50, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've been repeatedly confused by the the number of WAL files supposedly >> added. Even when 100s of new WAL files are created the relevant portion >> of log_checkpoints will only ever list zero or one

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-24 Thread Fujii Masao
On 2021/07/25 7:50, Andres Freund wrote: Hi, I've been repeatedly confused by the the number of WAL files supposedly added. Even when 100s of new WAL files are created the relevant portion of log_checkpoints will only ever list zero or one added WAL file. The reason for that is that Checkpoi

Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-24 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2021-07-24 15:50:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > As an example, here's the log output of a workload that has a replication slot > preventing WAL files from being recycled (and too small max_wal_size): > > 2021-07-24 15:47:42.524 PDT [2251649][checkpointer][:0] LOG: checkpoint > complete:

log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness

2021-07-24 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, I've been repeatedly confused by the the number of WAL files supposedly added. Even when 100s of new WAL files are created the relevant portion of log_checkpoints will only ever list zero or one added WAL file. The reason for that is that CheckpointStats.ckpt_segs_added is only incremented in