Hi, I performed some tests using elog(no so sure whether this is the proper way to do it) to monitor the new method. Here are the findings:
• With PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL set to 1000ms, the number of flush reports was reduced to approximately 40–50 during the installcheck test suite. • With PGSTAT_IDLE_INTERVAL set to 10000ms, the reports dropped to fewer than 5. • In contrast, the previous approach—flushing after every WalSndKeepaliveIfNecessary()—resulted in roughly 50,000 flushes. This reduction is significant, so the overhead from the flush reports is no longer a concern. However, we still need to determine whether this frequency is sufficient to capture the system’s state during periods of high WAL activity. Based on my tests, using PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL seems to provide a better balance than PGSTAT_IDLE_INTERVAL. > > > > 1. maybe relying on PGSTAT_IDLE_INTERVAL would make more sense? In both > > > case > > > PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL or PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL, I'm not sure there is a > need to > > > update the related doc. > > > > > > > > PGSTAT_IDLE_INTERVAL seems to reduce the frequency even more. > > Yeah, I think that PGSTAT_MIN_INTERVAL is the one to use (that's why > that's the > one the patch is using). I just mentioned PGSTAT_IDLE_INTERVAL as an open > door > for conversation in case one prefers a "larger" frequency. > >
