I could see this being interesting for FDW plan nodes of the status were visible in explain. Possibly also time spent waiting on network reads and writes.
I have a harder time seeing why it's useful to have these stays in aggregate but I suppose if you had lots of FDW connections or lots of steaming slaves you might want to be able to identify which ones are not getting used or are dominating your network usage. -- greg On 11 Dec 2013 10:52, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> > wrote: > >> Is there a reason why you can't get this directly from the OS? > > > I would say that its more of a convenience to track the usage directly > > from the database instead of setting up OS infrastructure to store it. > > The thing that I'm wondering is why the database would be the right place > to be measuring it at all. If you've got a network usage problem, > aggregate usage across everything on the server is probably what you > need to be worried about, and PG can't tell you that. > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
