Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 12:41:01 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	schneider@ardentperf.com
Subject: Re: monitoring usage count distribution
Message-ID: <20230405194101.GB105962@nathanxps13>
References: <20230130233040.GA2800702@nathanxps13>
 <CA+Tgmoa-c3avHFBdko9d7bGQuYXrJhHHjhG1yAs8h-k_sLbyPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230404232919.uibzbhjdylk3mlvp@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmobrQ90KGN4dwxL8q-LV529gCMmzXiy8CG5eQwjYTPzZLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230405175124.GA31516@nathanxps13>
 <CA+TgmoYRHDDJTgPcFkomz4KzzsQHXRJtqKeJyOk4AZNTjf=TnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230405190921.ck7v4y2h3ogoanvg@awork3.anarazel.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230405190921.ck7v4y2h3ogoanvg@awork3.anarazel.de>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230405194101.GB105962%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 12:09:21PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I would not mind having a separate function returning 6 rows, if we really
> want that, but making pg_buffercache_summary() return 6 rows would imo make it
> less useful for getting a quick overview. At least I am not that quick summing
> up multple rows, just to get a quick overview over the number of dirty rows.

This is what v1-0001 does.  We could probably make pg_buffercache_summary a
view on pg_buffercache_usage_counts, too, but that doesn't strike me as
tremendously important.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com