Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aN8l182jKxEq1h9f@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:27:06PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > +1. This field should clearly be there. Yeah, Bertrand has mentioned this one to me offlist, and I was equally surprised by the field gone missing. One question would be if we need to worry about the additional bytes of this field, but seeing the size of PgStat_StatTabEntry currently I'm going to answer "no" to my own question in advance. > Nothing jumped out at me in the code. Although, I think we should add > at least one test where pg_stat_reset_single_table_counters() is called > with an index OID. There isn't a difference in the way the stats are > reset for indexes and tables, but they are presented in different views, > so it makes sense to add test coverage. Makes sense to me. This matters in terms of coverage for HEAD, being outside of the scope of this proposal. > On a side note: I really think pg_stat_reset_single_table_counters is > the wrong name here, since other OIDs can be used here; indexes > or materialized views, etc. Maybe pg_stat_reset_single_relation_counters > will be better? It's mostly a historical artifact at this stage, and the function is documented as being usable for an index or a table. Using "relation" would be more consistent, indeed. I am not sure if it's worth bothering, though. What's the point of having tests for two tables? Shouldn't the one based on test_last_scan be enough? The one on pg_shdescription may actually fail on repeated runs, may it not? It is a shared catalog. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: