From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
        schneider@ardentperf.com
Subject: Re: monitoring usage count distribution
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmobRvYRxubzHY7PgnuYhJHPBGSF8a-6Ax+cz0Fm0EbxGgA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
 <20230405194101.GB105962@nathanxps13> <2061855.1680725784@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobRvYRxubzHY7PgnuYhJHPBGSF8a-6Ax+cz0Fm0EbxGgA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 06 Apr 2023 13:20:53 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <2478090.1680802355.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2023 13:32:35 -0400
Message-ID: <2478091.1680802355@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2478091.1680802355%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 4:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Having two functions doesn't seem unreasonable to me either.
>> Robert spoke against it to start with, does he still want to
>> advocate for that?

> My position is that if we replace the average usage count with
> something that gives a count for each usage count, that's a win. I
> don't have a strong opinion on an array vs. a result set vs. some
> other way of doing that. If we leave the average usage count in there
> and add yet another function to give the detail, I tend to think
> that's not a great plan, but I'll desist if everyone else thinks
> otherwise.

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.)

			regards, tom lane