Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> With all that in mind and because we have checks for the individual
> targets with pg_stat_reset_shared(), I would agree to just remove it
> entirely. Say as of the attached?
I'm good with that answer --- I doubt that this test sequence is
proving anything that's worth the cycles it takes. If it'd catch
oversights like failing to add new stats types to the "reset all"
code path, then I'd be for keeping it; but I don't see how the
test could notice that.
regards, tom lane
