From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Per backend relation statistics tracking |
Date: | 2025-08-27 13:57:13 |
Message-ID: | aK8OuVPmmDTc9CFX@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 04:55:09PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I worry that a single view will grow very wide, and we will have to eventually
> split it. So we may as well start thinking about having multiple views
> in advance.
I gave it more thoughts and I now think that multiple views is better. We
could start with pg_stat_backend_relations here.
> > Having said that, we could imagine adding
> > pg_stat_get_backend_wal() output to pg_stat_backend too.
>
> For this one, I think we should just overload the function
> pg_stat_get_backend_wal,
> and if a PID is not passed in, return all of them; and just create a
> new view called
> pg_stat_backend_wal that returns all the PIDs. sort of like how we have
> pg_stat_get_activity and pg_stat_activity, etc.
Yes, and it's also how the new view is designed in this patch. I think I'll
add a new pg_stat_backend_wal view if the current proposal goes in (for
consistency).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-08-27 14:03:08 | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-08-27 13:44:55 | Re: Inconsistent update in the MERGE command |