From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>,
        Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Adding locks statistics
In-reply-to: <aJqAei83uRWV93bM@paquier.xyz>
References: <aIyNxBWFCybgBZBS@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAKAnmm+USTr5MeKuyrAvbCjHqbSFbZ+czJsV7fPYt9nECQkf-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87c3170d0645cec732f0d7b2969c75db1b3c86c6.camel@j-davis.com>
 <aJqAei83uRWV93bM@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:44:58 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3282671.1754956185.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:49:45 -0400
Message-ID: <3282672.1754956185@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3282672.1754956185%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 02:53:58PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Can you describe your use case? I'd like to understand whether this is
>> useful for users, hackers, or both.

> This is a DBA feature, so the questions I'd ask myself are basically:
> - Is there any decision-making where these numbers would help?  These
> decisions would shape in tweaking the configuration of the server or
> the application to as we move from a "bad" number trend to a "good"
> number trend.
> - What would be good numbers?  In this case, most likely a threshold
> reached over a certain period of time.
> - Would these new stats overlap with similar statistics gathered in
> the system, creating duplication and bloat in the pgstats for no real
> gain?

I'm also wondering why slicing the numbers in this particular way
(i.e., aggregating by locktype) is a helpful way to look at the data.
Maybe it's just what you want, but that's not obvious to me.

			regards, tom lane