| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Reiss <thomas(dot)reiss(at)dalibo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2016-03-18 15:01:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZXtFgucnFHqzWGXjKxeY4pVqA=9hWLVGiG-qe_Sp+X-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> FWIW, my instinctive thought on the matter is to report the event
> directly in WaitLatch() via a name of the event caller provided
> directly in it. The category of the event is then defined
> automatically as we would know its origin. The code path defining the
> origin point from where a event type comes from is the critical thing
> I think to define an event category. The LWLock events are doing that
> in lwlock.c.
I'm very skeptical of grouping everything that waits using latches as
a latch wait, but maybe it's OK to do it that way. I was thinking
more of adding categories like "client wait" with events like "client
read" and "client write".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yury Zhuravlev | 2016-03-18 15:08:29 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-18 14:57:49 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |