On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:31 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> - "repossession" is a very unintuitive name for me. If we want something like
> it, can't we just name it reuse_failed or such?
+1, I think "repossessed" is awkward. I think "reuse_failed" works,
but no strong opinions on an alternate name.
> - Wonder if the column names should be reads, writes, extends, etc instead of
> the current naming pattern
Why? Lukas suggested alignment with existing views like
pg_stat_database and pg_stat_statements. It doesn't make sense to use
the blks_ prefix since it's not all blocks, but otherwise it seems
like we should be consistent, no?
> > "freelist_acquired" is confusing for local buffers but I wanted to
> > distinguish between reuse/eviction of local buffers and initial
> > allocation. "freelist_acquired" seemed more fitting because there is a
> > clocksweep to find a local buffer and if it hasn't been allocated yet it
> > is allocated in a place similar to where shared buffers acquire a buffer
> > from the freelist. If I didn't count it here, I would need to make a new
> > column only for local buffers called "allocated" or something like that.
>
> I think you're making this too granular. We need to have more detail than
> today. But we don't necessarily need to catch every nuance.
In general I agree that coarser granularity here may be easier to use.
I do think the current docs explain what's going on pretty well,
though, and I worry if merging too many concepts will make that harder
to follow. But if a less detailed breakdown still communicates
potential problems, +1.
> > This seems not too bad at first, but if you consider that later we will
> > add other kinds of IO -- eg WAL IO or temporary file IO, we won't be
> > able to use these existing columns and will need to add even more
> > columns describing the exact behavior in those cases.
>
> I think it's clearly not the right direction.
+1, I think the existing approach makes more sense.
