Hi, On 2023-04-24 10:52:15 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 12:55 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> > wrote: > > > I wonder if it's > > > worth doing so for 16? It'd give a more complete picture that way. The > > > counter-argument I see is that we didn't track the time for it in existing > > > stats either, and that nobody complained - but I suspect that's mostly > > > because > > > nobody knew to look. > > > > [RMT hat] > > > > (sorry for slow reply on this, I've been out for a few days). > > > > It does sound generally helpful to track writeback to ensure anyone > > building around pg_stat_io can see tthe more granular picture. How big > > of an effort is this? > > > > Right, I think this is the key factor to decide whether we can get > this in PG16 or not. If this is just adding a new column and a few > existing stats update calls then it should be okay to get in but if > this requires some more complex work then we can probably update the > docs.
I suspect it should really just be adding a few stats calls. The only possible complication that I can see is that we might need to pass a bit more context down in a place or two. Greetings, Andres Freund
