From: | "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer |
Date: | 2011-10-19 12:43:07 |
Message-ID: | CAHHcreoPyac3Ex=ggz+Dagzo_OEp9tnD9zjP5aggqcg5e6UhCA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/10/19 Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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: guedes(at)guedesoft(dot)net - skype: guediz
http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-19 12:44:37 | Re: loss of transactions in streaming replication |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-10-19 12:01:14 | Re: loss of transactions in streaming replication |