On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 07:06:35PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I think having the count and hte last time make sense, but I'm very > sceptical about the rest.
There may be other things which we are not considering on this thread. I don't know. > 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. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature