| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FPW stats? |
| Date: | 2018-05-03 16:54:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYk3G7LUu0wW7FW-4uiPnSpqpKqTL_nPCk_h=yv7Ky4Kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Your patch adds a new field to PgStat_StatDBEntry? Wouldn't you
> increase the bottleneck of deployments with many databases? What's
> actually your use case?
I'm a little doubtful about whether this particular thing is generally
useful but I think the bar for adding a field to PgStat_StatDBEntry is
probably a lot lower than for a per-table counter. I think adding
table-level counters is basically not happening without some kind of
rework of the infrastructure; whereas adding db-level counters seems
like it might be OK if we were convinced that they had real value.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-03 17:01:41 | Re: Built-in connection pooling |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-05-03 16:41:14 | Re: lazy detoasting |