From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_activity.waiting_start |
Date: | 2017-01-07 16:02:06 |
Message-ID: | 20170107160206.GD3164@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 01:25:08PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> I would actually argue the reverse of the above proposal would be more
> useful. What we need are counts of how often LWLocks take longer than,
> say, 50ms and for shorter waits we need to know how long. Perhaps not
> precisely for individual waits but in aggregate we need the totals to
> be right so as long as the measurements are accurate that would be
> sufficient. So an accurate but imprecise measurement +/- 10ms with low
> overhead is better than a precise measurement with high overhead.
I agree those values are important, but I don't think people are going
to be able to use pg_stat_activity to get them, so I don't see the point
of trying to supply them there.
See
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+Tgmoav9Q5v5ZGT3+wP_1tQjT6TGYXrwrDcTRrWimC+ZY7RRA@mail.gmail.com
for an excellent example of getting those values via polling.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-07 16:27:47 | Re: Teaching query_planner to handle multiple sort orders? |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2017-01-07 15:57:30 | Teaching query_planner to handle multiple sort orders? |