From: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN |
Date: | 2023-06-08 01:57:55 |
Message-ID: | 4420c7fb5bf0894ce92d6857a8d041ed@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-05-19 16:48, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> While at it, I think that making use of an enum might also be an open
> door
> (need to think more about it) to allow extensions to set their own wait
> event.
> Something like RequestNamedLWLockTranche()/GetNamedLWLockTranche() are
> doing.
>
> Currently we have "only" the "extension" wait event which is not that
> useful when
> there is multiples extensions installed in a database.
(Excuse me for cutting in, and this is not directly related to the
thread.)
+1. I'm interested in the feature.
Recently, I encountered a case where it would be nice if
different wait events were output for each extension.
I tested a combination of two extensions, postgres_fdw and neon[1],
and they output the "Extension" wait event, but it wasn't immediately
clear
which one was the bottleneck.
This is just a example and it probable be useful for other users. IMO,
at least,
it's better to improve the specification that "Extension" wait event
type has
only the "Extension" wait event.
[1] https://github.com/neondatabase/neon
Regards,
--
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-06-08 03:03:29 | RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2023-06-08 01:45:35 | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |