| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Lor <Robert(dot)Lor(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock statistics collector |
| Date: | 2006-08-07 03:50:06 |
| Message-ID: | 9343.1154922606@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I assume we want to gather the statistics per resource (represented by
> LWLockKind in my patch), not per LWLockId.
Why? I haven't yet seen any problem where that looked useful.
The named LWLocks are certainly sui generis, and as for things like
per-buffer locks I haven't seen any need for aggregate statistics ---
I'd rather know about "hot spots" if there are any buffers that are
not like the rest.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-07 03:53:43 | Re: 'startup waiting' status message |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-07 03:47:04 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-08-07 04:36:56 | Re: CSStorm occurred again by postgreSQL8.2 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-07 03:47:04 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] log_statement output for protocol |