Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Александр Коротков <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, 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>
Subject: Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Date: 2016-01-18 16:09:05
Message-ID: 20160118160905.GA68411@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila wrote:

> The reason for not updating the patch related to this thread is that it is
> dependent on the work for refactoring the tranches for LWLocks [1]
> which is now coming towards an end, so I think it is quite reasonable
> that the patch can be updated for this work during commit fest, so
> I am moving it to upcoming CF.

Thanks. I think the tranche reworks are mostly done now, so is anyone
submitting an updated version of this patch?

Also, it would be very good if someone can provide insight on how this
patch interacts with the other submitted patch for "waiting for
replication" https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/436/
Andres seems to think that the other patch is completely independent of
this one, i.e. the "waiting for replication" column needs to exist
separately and not as part of the "more descriptive" new 'waiting'
column.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-01-18 16:24:44 Re: statistics for array types
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-01-18 15:58:35 Re: Combining Aggregates