Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOBaU_bVsG6RdiitbkbPEwJsTr1b1JetyuvVh3m0j-7sg8U9kg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:25 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:47 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Actually we do track counters for shared relations (see >> pgstat_report_stat), we just don't expose them in any view. But it's >> still possible to get the counters manually: >> >> # select pg_stat_get_db_blocks_hit(0); >> pg_stat_get_db_blocks_hit >> --------------------------- >> 2710329 >> (1 row) > > > Oh, right, we do actually collect it, we just don't show is. So that's another argument *for* having it in pg_stat_database.Or at least not for having it in a checksum specific view, because then we should really make a separateview for this as well. Ok, so let's expose all the shared counters in pg_stat_database and remove the pg_stat_checksum view. >> My main concern is that pg_stat_get_db_numbackends(0) report something >> like the total number of backend (though it seems that there's an >> extra connection accounted for, I don't know which process it's), so >> if we expose it in pg_stat_database, sum(numbackends) won't make sense >> anymore. > > We could also just hardcoded it so that one always shows 0? That's a bit hacky, but that's probably the best compromise. Attached v4 with all those changes.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: