Hi Japin, Thanks for looking into this.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 10:01 PM Japin Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, Xuneng > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 19:17, Xuneng Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Zsolt, > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 1:55 PM Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > This is a simple patch, but shouldn't it include at least some basic > > tests verifying the new behavior? > > > > Thanks for looking into this. I've added a test for it. Please take a look. > > Thanks for updating the patch. A few comments on v2: > > 1. > + (The probes listed next fire in sequence during checkpoint > processing.) > + arg0 is the number of buffers written. arg1 is the total number of > > These changes seem unnecessary. Additionally, there appears to be an > indentation issue. Yeah, I've removed these and fixed the indentation issue. > 2. > + current = pg_atomic_read_u64(&XLogCtl->walSegmentsCreated); > + CheckpointStats.ckpt_segs_added = (int) > + (current - XLogCtl->walSegsCreatedLastCheckpoint); > + XLogCtl->walSegsCreatedLastCheckpoint = current; > > Is integer overflow a concern here? It seems unlikely in practice. I don’t think overflow is a concern here, but it might still be helpful to add some comments to mention it. > > > > -- > > Best, > > Xuneng > > > > [4. text/x-diff; > > v2-0001-Count-WAL-segment-creations-by-all-processes-in-l.patch]... > -- Best, Xuneng
v3-0001-Count-WAL-segment-creations-by-all-processes-in-l.patch
Description: Binary data
