Hi, On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 08:38:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2024-06-03 11:11:46 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > The main argument is that we currently don’t have writes counters for > > relations. > > The reason is that we don’t have the relation OID when writing buffers out. > > Tracking writes per relfilenode would allow us to track/consolidate writes > > per > > relation (example in the v1 patch and in the message up-thread). > > > > I think that adding instrumentation in this area (writes counters) could be > > beneficial (like it is for the ones we currently have for reads). > > > > Second argument is that this is also beneficial for the "Split index and > > table statistics into different types of stats" thread (mentioned in the > > previous > > message). It would allow us to avoid additional branches in some situations > > (like > > the one mentioned by Andres in the link I provided up-thread). > > I think there's another *very* significant benefit: > > Right now physical replication doesn't populate statistics fields like > n_dead_tup, which can be a huge issue after failovers, because there's little > information about what autovacuum needs to do. > > Auto-analyze *partially* can fix it at times, if it's lucky enough to see > enough dead tuples - but that's not a given and even if it works, is often > wildly inaccurate. > > > Once we put things like n_dead_tup into per-relfilenode stats,
Hm - I had in mind to populate relfilenode stats only with stats that are somehow related to I/O activities. Which ones do you have in mind to put in relfilenode stats? Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com