On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 11:23 PM Naga Appani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ashutosh, > > Thanks for the review! > > I agree - comparing the exposed members_size against the documented > thresholds is sufficient for monitoring purposes. > > This aligns with the approach taken in v11: exposing the current usage in > a way consistent with other PostgreSQL counters (e.g., XIDs, OIDs), without > introducing user-visible remaining-capacity calculations whose behavior is > inconsistent and difficult to interpret externally. In the same spirit, I > removed oldest_offset: as we discussed, it is internal and does not > provide an actionable signal to users. > > If this addresses the concerns raised so far, I would appreciate > consideration in moving v11 forward for commit.
The patch at [1] changes the function used to fetch mxid related information. With that we will get rid of awkwardness around non-availability of the statistics. It's better to wait for those changes to get committed before moving this forward. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
