| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2 |
| Date: | 2026-09-03 05:50:34 |
| Message-ID: | apkKqjpqFYrfMrcl@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > The scan only performs one backend local bool write per pending entry, so
> > this
> > is probably negligible compared to the actual flush work. A pass generation
> > could avoid the extra scan, but I'm not sure that would be worth the
> > additional
> > complexity.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>
> Even so, I think the pass-generation approach is the better idea here. It's
> slightly more code, but it avoids the extra full-list reset pass. I will
> feel
> better with the generational counter.
Thanks! The generation counter approach makes sense to me, it avoids the extra
reset scan.
I just have 1 minor comment related to the tests:
=== 1
+CREATE TABLE trunc_stats_test5(id serial);
I think it's related DROP is missing.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-09-03 05:51:28 | Re: pg_upgrade: Test --check with a running source server |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2026-09-03 05:35:53 | Re: Remove fcinfo from statistics update internal functions |