On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:44 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 3:43 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote: > > > > > I can somewhat agree that splitting it on a per database level might > even > > > at that be overdoing it. What might actually be more interesting from a > > > failure-location perspective would be tablespace, rather than any of > the > > > others. Or we could reduce it down to just putting it in > pg_stat_bgwriter > > > and only count global values perhaps, if in the end we don't think the > > > split-per-database is reasonable? > > > > A split per database or per tablespace is I think a very good thing. > > This helps in tracking down which partitions have gone crazy, and a > > single global counter does not allow that. > > Indeed, a per-tablespace would be much more convenient to track the > problem down at the physical level, but we don't have the required > infrastructure for that yet, and it seems quite late to add it now. > IMHO, a per-database has also some value, as it can help to track down > issues at the application level. > > Maybe we could add a new column to the view (for instance "source") > which would always be 'database', and we could later add > per-tablespace counters, keeping the view compatibility. > Ugh. If we wanted per tablespace counters, shouldn't we have a pg_stat_tablespace instead? So we'd have a checksum failures counter in pg_state_database separated by database, and one in pg_stat_tablespace separated by tablespace? (Along with probably a bunch of other entries for tablespaces) -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
