Re: FPW stats? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: FPW stats?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYk3G7LUu0wW7FW-4uiPnSpqpKqTL_nPCk_h=yv7Ky4Kg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FPW stats?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Your patch adds a new field to PgStat_StatDBEntry?  Wouldn't you
> increase the bottleneck of deployments with many databases?  What's
> actually your use case?

I'm a little doubtful about whether this particular thing is generally
useful but I think the bar for adding a field to PgStat_StatDBEntry is
probably a lot lower than for a per-table counter.  I think adding
table-level counters is basically not happening without some kind of
rework of the infrastructure; whereas adding db-level counters seems
like it might be OK if we were convinced that they had real value.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: lazy detoasting
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Built-in connection pooling