| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: adding wait_start column to pg_locks |
| Date: | 2021-01-14 18:45:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYowQhMhT74AsxDib6e3LFPGvXVxVOUdP0-hMNY9c1wgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:40 PM Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It looks like the logical place to store the value is in the PROCLOCK
> structure; ...
That seems surprising, because there's one PROCLOCK for every
combination of a process and a lock. But, a process can't be waiting
for more than one lock at the same time, because once it starts
waiting to acquire the first one, it can't do anything else, and thus
can't begin waiting for a second one. So I would have thought that
this would be recorded in the PROC.
But I haven't looked at the patch so maybe I'm dumb.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-01-14 19:04:30 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-01-14 18:42:15 | Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware |