Let me go back to the original motivation. As I understand it, the problem was that, among several subscribers connected through different slots, one slot was lagging behind. The total_txns and total_bytes values for that slot appeared smaller, and you wanted to know where the bottleneck was.
I wonder if part of the confusion comes from the fact that it is not yet clear what conclusions a user is expected to draw from these new values. What I am still not quite sure about is how the proposed sent_bytes value would be used to make that distinction. It sounds like the idea is not necessarily to look at its rate over time, but perhaps to compare total_bytes with the proposed sent_bytes. However, as has been discussed, these two values seem to measure different things, so I am not sure that such a comparison would be straightforward. I think it would help move the discussion forward if you could explain more concretely how these new values would be used to identify the bottleneck in the case you described. Personally, in such a situation, I would first add some temporary instrumentation at a few likely points and print the values with elog() or similar, just to see which value actually distinguishes the bottleneck. Once we know that, it should be easier to decide whether that measurement is generally useful enough to expose in a statistics view, and where it should be measured. Regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
