Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 00:09:53 -0400
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
 Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Subject: Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage
Message-ID: <a5t73gmql64y7pwmb3wvuvvnhil45ucyk46ud37olk3cgvvj44@rhrak3zuafjb>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP53PkzpJ39HFRGaMR7n5kSsNuqui3TJ3Gw_FU7k_qjdBvT6hg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a5t73gmql64y7pwmb3wvuvvnhil45ucyk46ud37olk3cgvvj44%40rhrak3zuafjb>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2026-04-07 15:27:45 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 3:19 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> 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