From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
Date: | 2025-04-11 22:03:59 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwavLn_axRJtiShiYHHjERj7PkY3hZM7YbpsT5YmMpsgFQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 12:33 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also thinking to reword n_tup_upd, something like:
> >
> > Total number of rows updated. Subsets of these updates are also tracked
> in n_tup_hot_upd and n_tup_newpage_upd to facilitate performance monitoring.
>
> I think the current explanation is clear enough, I am also not too
> thrilled about the "...to facilitate performance monitoring." since
> the cumulative stats system
> as a whole is known to be used to facilitate perf monitoring.
>
Yeah, it was mostly a style thing - I was trying to avoid using
parentheses, but the existing does make the needed point.
> What do you think of the attached?
>
>
WFM. Though is there a reason to avoid adding the "why" of the exception
for n_mod_since_analyze?
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-04-11 23:01:37 | Re: New committer: Jacob Champion |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-04-11 21:43:19 | Re: type cache cleanup improvements |