Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest)

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest)
Date: 2010-02-27 18:17:42
Message-ID: 4B8961C6.2000408@2ndquadrant.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> Returned with feedback in October after receiving a lot of review, no 
>> updated version submitted since then:
>>
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=98
>>
>
> Hmm - I would say a bit of review rather than a lot :-)

It looks like you got useful feedback from at least three people, and 
people were regularly looking at your patch in some form for about three 
months.  That's a lot of review.  In many other open-source projects, 
your first patch would have been rejected after a quick look as 
unsuitable and that would have been the end of things for you.  I feel 
lucky every time I get a volunteer to spend time reading my work and 
suggesting how it could be better; your message here doesn't seem to 
share that perspective.

> I'd also like to take the opportunity to express a little frustration 
> about the commitfest business - really all I wanted was the patch 
> *reviewed* as WIP - it seemed that in order to do that I needed to 
> enter it into the various commitfests... then I was faced with 
> comments to the effect that it was not ready for commit so should not 
> have been entered into a commifest at all... sigh, a bit of an 
> enthusiasm killer I'm afraid...

To lower your frustration level next time, make sure to label the e-mail 
and the entry on the CommitFest app with the magic abbreviation "WIP" 
and this shouldn't be so much of an issue.  The assumption for patches 
is that someone submitted them as commit candidates, and therefore they 
should be reviewed to that standard, unless clearly labeled otherwise.  
You briefly disclaimed yours as not being in that category in the 
initial text of your first message, but it was easy to miss that, 
particularly once it had been >8 months from when that messages showed 
up and it was still being discussed.

If you wanted to pick this back up again, I'd think that a look at 
what's been happening with the lock_timeout GUC patch would be 
informative--I'd think that has some overlap with the sort of thing you 
were trying to do.

FYI, I thought your patch was useful, but didn't spent time on it 
because it's not ambitious enough.  I would like to see statistics on a 
lot more types of waiting than just locks, and keep trying to find time 
to think about that big problem rather than worrying about the 
individual pieces of it.

-- 
Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com   www.2ndQuadrant.us


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-27 19:10:07
Subject: Re: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest)
Previous:From: Rémi ZaraDate: 2010-02-27 17:18:10
Subject: Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group