| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2015-08-14 14:11:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4067.1439561494@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev <
> i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> This is why I think we shoudn't place wait event into PgBackendStatus. It
>> could be placed into PGPROC or even separate data structure with different
>> concurrency model which would be most suitable for monitoring.
> +1 for tracking wait events not only for backends
> Ildus, could you do following?
> 1) Extract LWLocks refactoring into separate patch.
> 2) Make a patch with storing current wait event information in PGPROC.
What will this accomplish exactly, other than making it more complicated
to make a copy of the information when we capture an activity snapshot?
You'll have to get data out of two places, which do not have any
synchronization protocol defined between them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-08-14 14:14:22 | Re: why can the isolation tester handle only one waiting process? |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2015-08-14 13:53:02 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |