Re: monitoring usage count distribution

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com
Subject: Re: monitoring usage count distribution
Date: 2023-04-06 18:06:08
Message-ID: 20230406180608.GA275542@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:32:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There seems to be enough support for the existing summary function
> definition to leave it as-is; Andres likes it for one, and I'm not
> excited about trying to persuade him he's wrong. But a second
> slightly-less-aggregated summary function is clearly useful as well.
> So I'm now thinking that we do want the patch as-submitted.
> (Caveat: I've not read the patch, just the description.)

In case we want to do both, here's a 0002 that changes usagecount_avg to an
array of usage counts.

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-introduce-pg_buffercache_usage_counts.patch text/x-diff 9.9 KB
v2-0002-replace-usagecount_avg-with-an-array-of-usage-cou.patch text/x-diff 5.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2023-04-06 18:20:41 Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2023-04-06 17:56:17 Re: psql \watch 2nd argument: iteration count