Re: Background Processes and reporting

> 12 марта 2016 г., в 13:59, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> написал(а):
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de <mailto:andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer,
> > > background writer are in many cases processes that very often are
> > > blocked on locks, IO and such. Thus restricting the facility to
> > > database connected processes seems like a loss.
> >
> > I think one way to address this would be to not only report
> > PgBackendStatus type processes in pg_stat_activity. While that'd
> > obviously be a compatibility break, I think it'd be an improvement.
> >
>
> I think here another point which needs more thoughts is that many of the pg_stat_activity fields are not relevant for background processes, ofcourse one can say that we can keep those fields as NULL, but still I think that indicates it is not the most suitable way to expose such information.
>
> Another way could be to have new view like pg_stat_background_activity with only relevant fields or try expose via individual views like pg_stat_bgwriter.

From the DBA point of view it is much more convenient to see all wait events in one view. I don’t know if it is right to break compability even more, but IMHO exposing this data in different views is a bad plan.

>
> Do you intend to get this done for 9.6 considering an add-on patch for wait event information displayed in pg_stat_activity?
>
>
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/>

--
May the force be with you…
https://simply.name