| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2 |
| Date: | 2026-08-19 02:53:12 |
| Message-ID: | aoUamI1Ul4sz9zYo@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 01:01:25PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>
> I think we should keep a single struct but split it into two contiguous
> regions, non-transactional first and transactional after, with comments
> marking the boundary, and use an offset to compare each group on its own.
FWIW, I'd vote for an helper comparing the five counters that can be flushed
immediately. There are only five, and adding another one would already require
updating the merge and baseline logic.
That would keep the policy local to pgstat_relation_flush_cb() and avoid making
PgStat_TableCounts field order part of the flush logic.
That said, let's see what Michael thinks.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2026-08-19 02:55:52 | Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-08-19 02:36:15 | Re: pg_stat_database.checksum_failures misses single-page failures in backups |