Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)
Date: 2017-03-09 21:37:29
Message-ID: 25652.1489095449@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> In practice, I think it's common to do a quick select * from
>> pg_stat_activity to determine whether a database instance is in use.

> I thought of the same kind of thing, and it was discussed upthread.
> There seemed to be more votes for keeping it all in one view, but that
> could change if more people vote.

I've not been paying much attention to this thread, but it seems like
something that would help Peter's use-case and have other uses as well
is a new column that distinguishes different process types --- user
session, background worker, autovacuum worker, etc.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-09 21:39:42 Re: compiler warning in set_tablefunc_size_estimates
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-09 21:13:20 Re: ICU integration