public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Lukas Fittl <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 00:09:53 -0400
Message-ID: <a5t73gmql64y7pwmb3wvuvvnhil45ucyk46ud37olk3cgvvj44@rhrak3zuafjb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP53PkzpJ39HFRGaMR7n5kSsNuqui3TJ3Gw_FU7k_qjdBvT6hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mtjyijvuv7xavvcdy3rosg43ycy3t5sluioxkef46se25ajtxp@e3e2xvesqhzu>
<CAP53Pky4zHCueAyPkWE-cH6SqE_m+Kppmy=zE5K36X3HvCFZLw@mail.gmail.com>
<pgvy7lsoa5jldwgyay2g757xivzbmgyan547wealc7cwtduvra@dysyw6dtqdgs>
<3xbje45m5knff52mye5dfnrjdnwv7it2bzmqac3jqe66fvop4a@xvhy6zx7n6sb>
<CAP53Pkzec5L=PDvF+zrPei2kM1FZH6pD2aD=zFWXwzW8oKXJBg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAN4CZFM11mo-Bo3nhdcvVQ_ue7w3u_p8AL6xyDs054Q8kSv-xQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53PkzfeTzoC0WTL-ftVsn00ZV9wTe2_6g71txE5dN3Zq1y5g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53Pkyqsht+exJQYRsjhSWYKu+vFGHhPub7m6PmFD6Or0=p1g@mail.gmail.com>
<rhah5kx5ftfztu532zck4mhc4hxtfis4z552laisd53sf6ycrn@wnbste4hleyg>
<CAP53PkzpJ39HFRGaMR7n5kSsNuqui3TJ3Gw_FU7k_qjdBvT6hg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 2026-04-07 15:27:45 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 3:19 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think renaming makes sense - both to make sure extensions reconsider
> how they use it, and because "totaltime" is a bad name anyway, because
> its not just about timing (and hasn't been for many releases).
>
> "query_instr[_options]" seems reasonable to me, although we could drop
> the "query_" since it'd be "queryDesc->query_instr" vs
> "queryDesc->instr".
Done that way.
I earlier pushed 0002 too.
> > Kinda wonder about having
> > EXPLAIN (ANALYZE BUFFERS totals_only, WAL totals_only) ...;
> >
> > in plenty cases that'd be all one needs, at substantially lower cost.
>
> True. I don't like the name "totals_only", but I like the concept.
I spent all of three seconds coming up with it... :)
> Today someone has to go to pg_stat_statements to get just the total
> numbers, without running them for all nodes with EXPLAIN ANALYZE (and
> incurring its overhead).
Yep.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
view thread (42+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage
In-Reply-To: <a5t73gmql64y7pwmb3wvuvvnhil45ucyk46ud37olk3cgvvj44@rhrak3zuafjb>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox