feat: command to analyze table read/write I/O patterns

[NickLittman]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

New feature - Adds inspect db traffic-profile command

What is the current behavior?

No built-in command to analyze table read/write I/O patterns.

What is the new behavior?

Adds supabase inspect db traffic-profile command that analyzes PostgreSQL statistics (pg_stat_user_tables and pg_statio_user_tables) to categorize tables by workload:

• Read-Heavy - Read operations are more than 5x write operations (e.g., 1:10, 1:50)
• Write-Heavy - Write operations are more than 20% of read operations (e.g., 1:2, 1:4, 2:1, 10:1)
• Balanced - Mixed workload where writes are between 20% and 500% of reads
• Read-Only - Only read operations detected
• Write-Only - Only write operations detected

Example output:

SCHEMA │ TABLE        │ BLOCKS READ │ WRITE TUPLES │ BLOCKS WRITE │ ACTIVITY RATIO
───────┼──────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼────────────────────
public │ user_events  │     450,234 │     9,004,680│       23,450 │ 20:1 (Write-Heavy)
public │ users        │      89,203 │        12,451│        1,203 │ 7.2:1 (Read-Heavy)

Additional context

• Query adapted from Crunchy Data's blog post on analyzing Postgres read/write patterns
• Follows existing inspect command patterns
• Includes unit tests and documentation
• Tests passing: ✅

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18718316541

Details

• 14 of 24 (58.33%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• 7 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 54.587%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
cmd/inspect.go	0	4	0.0%
internal/inspect/traffic_profile/traffic_profile.go	14	20	70.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
internal/storage/rm/rm.go	2	80.61%
internal/gen/keys/keys.go	5	12.9%

Totals
Change from base Build 18712223732:	-0.02%
Covered Lines:	6403
Relevant Lines:	11730

---

💛 - Coveralls

[sweatybridge]

Looks good. Should we include this in the report command as well?

[NickLittman]

@sweatybridge good call, it seems a trailing ; was blocking the report from running the traffic-profile command. Fixed this now.