On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:06:35PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think having the count and hte last time make sense, but I'm very
> sceptical about the rest.
There may be other things which we are not considering on this
thread. I don't know.
> I can somewhat agree that splitting it on a per database level might even
> at that be overdoing it. What might actually be more interesting from a
> failure-location perspective would be tablespace, rather than any of the
> others. Or we could reduce it down to just putting it in pg_stat_bgwriter
> and only count global values perhaps, if in the end we don't think the
> split-per-database is reasonable?
A split per database or per tablespace is I think a very good thing.
This helps in tracking down which partitions have gone crazy, and a
single global counter does not allow that.
--
Michael