>Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de <mailto:andres@anarazel.de>> writes: >> On 2016-08-22 13:54:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: >>>> I'm inclined to suggest you forget this approach and propose a single >>>> counter for "SQL commands executed", which avoids all of the above >>>> definitional problems. People who need more detail than that are >>>> probably best advised to look to contrib/pg_stat_statements, anyway.
>>> I disagree. I think SQL commands executed, lumping absolutely >>> everything together, really isn't much use.
>> I'm inclined to agree. I think that's a quite useful stat when looking >> at an installation one previously didn't have a lot of interaction with.
>Well, let's at least have an "other" category so you can add up the >counters and get a meaningful total.
How would that meaningful total might help a user. What can a user might analyse with the counter in 'other' category.
The user could then judge if there were a significant number of examples not covered in the other categories - this may, or may not, be a problem; depending on the use case.
Cheers, Gavin
For the user to be able to judge that whether the number in the 'other' category is a problem or not, the user is also required to know what all might fall under the 'other' category. It may not be good to say that _anything_ that is not part of the already defined category is part of 'other'. Probably, 'other' should also be a set of predefined operations.
