Re: Add missing stats_reset column to pg_stat_database_conflicts view

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shihao zhong <zhong950419(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add missing stats_reset column to pg_stat_database_conflicts view
Date: 2026-03-10 19:27:14
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0ta3y==2AStFyo-SYyJ2ztd3ZiurN1HQR9gzDTKVtgUDg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Please don't top-post. it makes following the thread difficult.

> > I also noticed that pg_statio_all_sequences does not have a reset
> > column. We should fix this one also. What do you think?
>
> Right now the pg_statio_all_tables, pg_statio_all_indexes,
> pg_statio_all_sequences, pg_stat_user_functions all do not have
> reset_stat supported. I am actively working on tadd a reset_stat
> support for these view. For now, let's quickly address the db conflict
> first.

It looks like stats_reset for pg_stat_user_functions was added in
b71bae41a0cd and for the others you mention, expected for
pg_statio_all_sequences, was added in a5b543258aa2.
These are already targeted for 19, and you can also see
that in the devel docs [1].

The changes you attached in v2 look good to me, but I think
we should also add a test in stats.sql as well.

FWIW, I find using "git format-patch" better for the threads. It
forces you to write a commit message and properly formats
the patch name [2]? It's the most common way I see patches
being submitted.

[1] [https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/monitoring-stats.html]
[2] [https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch]

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2026-03-10 19:28:12 Re: Correcting freeze conflict horizon calculation
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2026-03-10 19:24:25 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]