On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:22 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:56:14AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > But there's still the problem of reporting errors on shared relation, > > so pg_stat_database doesn't really fit for that. If we go with a > > checksum centric view, it'd be strange to have some of the counters in > > another view. > > Having pg_stat_database filled with a phantom row full of NULLs to > track checksum failures of shared objects would be confusing I think. > I personally quite like the separate view approach, with one row per > database, but one opinion does not stand as an agreement. > It wouldn't be just that, but it would make sense to include things like blks_read/blks_hit there as well, wouldn't it? As well as read/write time. Things we don't track today, but it could be useful to do so. But yeah, I'm not strongly in either direction, so if others feel strongly a separate view is better, then we should do a separate view. Anyway, even if we have no agreement on the shape of what we'd like to > do, I don't think that HEAD is in a proper shape now because we just > don't track a portion of the objects which could have checksum > failures. So we should either revert the patch currently committed, > or add tracking for shared objects, but definitely not keep the code > in a state in-between. > Definitely. That's why we're discussing it now :) Maybe we should put it on the open items list, because we definitely don't want to ship it one way and then change our mind in the next version. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
