Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, lukas(at)fittl(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)
Date: 2023-02-27 23:18:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-02-27 14:58:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Agreed. I'll push this along with the earlier patch if there are
> not objections.

None here.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vik Fearing 2023-02-27 23:38:21 Re: Adding argument names to aggregate functions
Previous Message Imseih (AWS), Sami 2023-02-27 22:53:26 Re: Doc update for pg_stat_statements normalization