Re: Separating bgwriter and checkpointer

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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