| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Qi Huang <huangqiyx(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2 |
| Date: | 2012-10-23 14:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | 18303.1351003784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Regarding Tom's objection to the fundamental issue of providing lwlocks
> data, I agree that maybe it's the wrong layer to be measuring to provide
> data to DBAs, but not providing any data is worse, because then even PG
> developers cannot know what are the real bottlenecks; and it's hard to
> see what other layer we need to be measuring. Maybe this can serve as a
> foundation to discover useful things to provide in the future.
FWIW, I am not objecting to having the *ability* to collect such data.
I am questioning the usefulness/wisdom of having it turned on by
default, and I am also concerned about whether there is residual
overhead even when it's not turned on.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-23 14:52:55 | Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review] |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-23 14:44:57 | Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2 |