On 24.08.2021 12:19, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> However I'm not sure that having a new "network" option is the best
> way for that. It seems confusing as IIUC it won't be catching all
> network activity (like fe/be activity, or network disk...) but only
> FDW activity. I think it would be better to have those information
> retrieved when using the verbose option rather than a new one.
> Similarly, I'm afraid that INSTRUMENT_NETWORK could be misleading,
> although I don't have any better proposal right now.
I am also doubtful about this naming. Initially, I wanted to add fe/be
activity as one of the metrics, but then decided to restrict myself to
FDW for now. However, I decided to leave "network" as it is, because to
me it makes sense to have all the network-related metrics under a single
explain option (and a single instrumentation flag perhaps), in case more
are added later. The struct fields used for collection internally tell
explicitly that they are meant to be used only for FDW stats and the
explain output also mentions that the displayed stats are for FDW
network activity.