| From: | Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using ProcSignal to get memory context stats from a running backend |
| Date: | 2017-12-22 15:19:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1f33aa48-d7be-a6e8-8f2b-50923c9ef7ca@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.12.2017 16:56, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 22 December 2017 at 20:50, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 19.12.2017 16:54, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> sorry for small offtopic. Can be used this mechanism for log of
>> executed plan or full query?
>
>
> That's a really good idea. I'd love to be able to pg_explain_backend(...)
>
> I left the mechanism as a generic diagnostic signal exactly so that we
> could add other things we wanted to be able to ask backends. I think a
> follow-on patch that adds support for dumping explain-format plans
> would be great, if it's practical to do that while a query's already
> running.
Noticing the interest in the calling some routines on the remote backend
through signals, in parallel thread[1] I have proposed the possibility
to define user defined signal handlers in extensions. There is a patch
taken from pg_query_state module.
1.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3f905f10-cf7a-d4e0-64a1-7fd9b8351592%40gmail.com
--
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-22 15:42:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-22 15:10:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |