Re: PATCH: tracking temp files in pg_stat_database

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH: tracking temp files in pg_stat_database
Date: 2012-01-20 12:23:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 21:39, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
> On 20.12.2011 19:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 20.12.2011 11:20, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> 2011/12/20 Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>:
>>>> I haven't updated the docs yet - let's see if the patch is acceptable at
>>>> all first.
>>> Again, without having reviewed the code, this looks like a feature
>>> we'd want, so please add some docs, and then submit it for the next
>>> commitfest!
>> I've added the docs (see the attachment) and rebased to current head.
>> Tomas
> Fixed a failing regression test (check of pg_stat_database structure).

I'm wondering if this (and also my deadlocks stats patch that's int he
queue) should instead of inventing new pgstats messages, add fields to
the tabstat message. It sounds like that one is just for tables, but
it's already the one collecting info about commits and rollbacks, and
it's already sent on every commit.

Adding two fields to that one would add some extra bytes on every
send, but I wonder if that woudl ever affect performance, given the
total size of the packet? And it would certainly be lower overhead in
the cases that there *have* been temp tables used.


 Magnus Hagander

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2012-01-20 12:54:28 Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-20 11:41:05 Re: New replication mode: write