Hi, On 2023-04-05 15:00:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 1:51 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:44:58AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 7:29 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > >> > Replacing that with a six-element integer array would be a clear > > >> > improvement > > >> > and, IMHO, better than adding yet another function to the extension. > > >> > > >> I'd have no issue with that. > > > > > > Cool. > > > > The six-element array approach won't show the number of dirty and pinned > > buffers for each usage count, but I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker. > > Barring objections, I'll post an updated patch shortly with that approach. > > Right, well, I would personally be OK with 6 rows too, but I don't > know what other people want. I think either this or that is better > than average.
I would not mind having a separate function returning 6 rows, if we really want that, but making pg_buffercache_summary() return 6 rows would imo make it less useful for getting a quick overview. At least I am not that quick summing up multple rows, just to get a quick overview over the number of dirty rows. Greetings, Andres Freund
