Re: monitoring usage count distribution

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Having two functions doesn't seem unreasonable to me either.
>> Robert spoke against it to start with, does he still want to
>> advocate for that?

> My position is that if we replace the average usage count with
> something that gives a count for each usage count, that's a win. I
> don't have a strong opinion on an array vs. a result set vs. some
> other way of doing that. If we leave the average usage count in there
> and add yet another function to give the detail, I tend to think
> that's not a great plan, but I'll desist if everyone else thinks
> otherwise.

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.)

regards, tom lane