| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |
| Date: | 2017-03-09 21:03:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20170309210336.mzcfyroqmjc27j6q@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-03-09 14:30:21 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> In practice, I think it's common to do a quick select * from
> pg_stat_activity to determine whether a database instance is in use.
> (You always see your own session, but that's easy to eyeball.) If we
> add all the various background processes by default, that will make
> things harder, especially if there is no straightforward way to filter
> them out.
A good chunk of those still apply to database attached background
workers (say dropping a database, using it as a template) - so I'm not
really convinced that's an issue.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-03-09 21:05:10 | alter enum add value regression |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-09 21:01:46 | Re: on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management |