Re: wait event documentation

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wait event documentation
Date: 2017-04-04 12:17:43
Message-ID: CA+HiwqEJ-eO6e4xh9dxf=mXs1ZJ20poLFH3Rcd8UYcVwi_nidA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> By the way, wonder if it wouldn't make sense to take the whole Table 28.1.
>> Dynamic Statistics Views into a new section (perhaps before 28.2 Viewing
>> Locks or after), since those views display information different from what
>> the statistics collector component collects and publishes (those in the
>> Table 28.2. Collected Statistics Views).
>
> It seems a little short for that, doesn't it? I mean, I'm not against
> it on principle, but we don't want to hoist a 5-line table into a
> section by itself.

I was thinking that if we move Table 28.1 to a new section, Tables
28.3 (pg_stat_activity) to 28.8 (pg_stat_ssl) will go too.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-04-04 12:28:29 Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-04 12:05:58 Re: wait event documentation