Hi,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 04:19:26AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 02:08:00PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I'm pretty doubtful that pgstat_backend.c is the right
> > architectural direction. It'll just end up implementing all kinds of stats,
> > since we'll incrementally want more and more per-backend stats. I think what
> > we'd want is rather something where for each applicable stats kind we have a
> > shared counter for all exited backends and then per-backend counters for live
> > backends, with helpers to aggregate the exited + live stats to a total.
>
> That's a very nice proposal that would avoid the double counting. OTOH, that's
> also a major re-design that would benefit all existing per-backend stats kinds.
>
> I can see 2 options:
>
> 1/
>
> step 1: Implement per-backend AIO stats (like proposed taking into account your
> remark about useless, derivable fields) + a global view.
> step 2: work on the re-design
>
> 2/
>
> step 1: work on the redesign
> step 2: Add AIO stats based on the re-design
>
> The pros of 1/ is that step 1 would most probably land in 20, providing more user
> visibility (+ it could be used or improved during the AIO write project). Step 2
> is a much larger project that might not land in 20.
>
> The cons, would be double counting (as there is no need to try to implement
> something like [1] as we are going to re-design anyway).
>
> I'll be tempted to vote for 1/ to provide faster added value. What do you (Andres,
> Michael) think?
Actually, there is no rush to merge the per-backend AIO stats (we still have
plenty of time for 20). So let's try option 2 and implement the new design first
and see where it goes. I'll create a dedicated thread once ready.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
