Re: Session WAL activity

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Session WAL activity
Date: 2019-12-06 01:57:14
Message-ID: 20191206015714.GH121835@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 12:23:40PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Concerning keeping PGPROC size as small as possible, I agree that it is
> reasonable argument.
> But even now it is very large (816 bytes) and adding extra 8 bytes will
> increase it on less than 1%.

It does not mean that we should add all kind of things to PGPROC as
that's a structure sensitive enough already. By the way, why do you
assume that 8-byte reads are always safe and atomic in the patch?

> Right now pg_stat_activity also accessing PGPROC to obtain wait event
> information and also not taking any locks.
> So it can wrongly report backend status. But I never heard that somebody
> complains about it.

Please see pgstat.h, close to pgstat_report_wait_start().
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2019-12-06 03:04:08 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-12-06 01:33:23 Re: Removal of support for OpenSSL 0.9.8 and 1.0.0