Re: monitoring usage count distribution

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:32:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There seems to be enough support for the existing summary function
>> definition to leave it as-is; Andres likes it for one, and I'm not
>> excited about trying to persuade him he's wrong. But a second
>> slightly-less-aggregated summary function is clearly useful as well.
>> So I'm now thinking that we do want the patch as-submitted.
>> (Caveat: I've not read the patch, just the description.)

> In case we want to do both, here's a 0002 that changes usagecount_avg to an
> array of usage counts.

I'm not sure if there is consensus for 0002, but I reviewed and pushed
0001. I made one non-cosmetic change: it no longer skips invalid
buffers. Otherwise, the row for usage count 0 would be pretty useless.
Also it seemed to me that sum(buffers) ought to agree with the
shared_buffers setting.

regards, tom lane