Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aOTNfF9+7Dw7Enjk@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add stats_reset to pg_stat_all_tables|indexes and related views
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 08:58:30AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 08:57:32AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > A few remakrs: > > This looks globally sensible, from here. Thanks for looking at it! > A few remarks. > > > - It does not use an existing macro (as such macro does not exist) to generate the > > function that reports this new field. So we've more flexibility for the name > > and went for pg_stat_get_function_stat_reset_time() (to be consistent with > > say pg_stat_get_db_stat_reset_time()). > > There is the same exception for function_calls(). Not using a macro > is OK. We cannot remove any code if introduced. Yeah, no need to add a new macro here. > > - The tests are done in the isolation suite (as this is where > > pg_stat_reset_single_function_counters() is already being tested) and I don't > > think there is a need to add one in the regress suite (that test for the > > pg_stat_user_functions output). Indeed the pg_stat_get_function_stat_reset_time() > > call output test is already added in the isolation one. > > A test addition in the isolation stats spec sounds OK to me. As far > as I can see, there is one mistake here: stats_1.out is left > untouched. This alternate output has been introduced by a2f433fa491f > for the case where 2PC is disabled. Good catch! Fixed in v2 attached. > Did you also look at the test stability under CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE > (d6c0db14836c)? I just checked with CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE (and RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE) and that looks stable on my side. > Should we care about the step s2_func_stats, as well? stats are reset only for s1, but that does not hurt to check that s2 also provides expected results: done in the attached. Also re-tested CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE and RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE with this new test. > > - The new field is not added in pg_stat_xact_user_functions for the exact > > same reasons as it was not added for the relations case. > > Of course. reset_stats is a state stored in shmem, we don't need it > in the transaction views that only get what's local to the > transaction. Perhaps I should have kept the note in a5b543258aa2 > about the table/index stats, but that did not strike me as worth > mentioning based on how the xact views are implemented. Yeah. Maybe add a word or two in this commit if you really feel the need. I just mentioned it in the thread for reference anyway. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: