Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 10:24:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 05:27:06PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > +1. This field should clearly be there.
> 

Thank you both for looking at it!

> 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.

Yeah, I was thinking the same and reached the same conclusion.

> > 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.

Added one test on pg_stat_all_indexes in v2 attached. That's the first test
on "pg_stat_all_indexes" in .sql files. It just tests the new stats_reset field,
I think it's sufficient for the purpose of this patch.

> > 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,

Yeah, it comes from 083e1b0f27df and the associated discussion is [1]. From what
I can see, at that time the struct that was holding the table and index stats
was "PgStat_TableCounts". So the naming "pg_stat_reset_single_table_counters"
somehow made more sense at that time.

> 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.

It's done and documented that way since 2010, so I'm also not sure it's worth
bothering.

> 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.

Yeah this one may need to be done differently. I just removed it as it does
not provide extra value here.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9837222c1001240837r5c103519lc6a74c37be5f1831%40mail.gmail.com

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com