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: 2023-04-08 00:18:16
Message-ID: 20230408001816.GA519579@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 02:29:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure if there is consensus for 0002, but I reviewed and pushed
> 0001. I made one non-cosmetic change: it no longer skips invalid
> buffers. Otherwise, the row for usage count 0 would be pretty useless.
> Also it seemed to me that sum(buffers) ought to agree with the
> shared_buffers setting.

Makes sense. Thanks!

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-04-08 00:19:42 Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-04-08 00:14:33 Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler?