Hi, On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 05:51:38PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > Thanks for the patches. > > I have not gone through them in detail yet, but +1 on adding backend activity > stats.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > This provides another level of drill down to spot anomalous sessions or > different patterns across applications. I also think we will want more than > just relation stats. For example, columns from pg_statio already look useful > on > a per-backend aggregate level. Beyond that, I can imagine future additions > like > number of transactions, subtransactions, I/O stats, conflicts, etc. All of > these > seem like valuable per-backend aggregates. > > That is why I think we should be careful about naming. pg_stat_backend feels > very generic, but right now it only shows relation stats. Maybe we call it > pg_stat_backend_tables to start? Then if we later add I/O, we could have > pg_stat_backend_io, or for conflicts, pg_stat_backend_conflicts, etc. That way > we keep things more flexible, instead of trying to fit everything into > one view. It also helps us avoid having to rename views in the future. > > What do you think? My initial idea was to provide just a single view for "basic" counters (i.e things that do not need multiple lines per backend (like pg_stat_get_backend_io() output would need). That would mean a single view for "basic" counters and a set of functions for more "sophisticated" ones (like pg_stat_get_backend_io()) that need multiple rows per backend. Having said that, we could imagine adding pg_stat_get_backend_wal() output to pg_stat_backend too. Thoughts? -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
